My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

• Agricultural Training Board Act,
• Industrial Training Act,
• Canada Act,
• Travel Concessions (London) Act.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government why the British Airports Authority deem it necessary to change the names of the lounges at London Airport from Alcock and Brown to Hillingdon, and from de Havilland, Brabazon and Kingsford-Smith to Hounslow.

My Lords, the choice of names for the VIP suites at Heathrow Airport is a matter for the board of the British Airports Authority and not for the Government. I understand that the proposed changes were prompted by the reduction in the number of suites in the central area from four to two and the consequential difficulty of choosing which of the four names of equally famous aviation pioneers to drop.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that this is one of the greatest insults which could have been given to these brave pioneers of British aviation? Secondly, will he confirm that there is already a VIP lounge on the south side of the airport, called Southside, and that would make a total of three? Does he not agree that this is just another example of the British Airports Authority's bureaucracy?

My Lords, we would certainly agree it is very sad that these famous names will no longer be noted and attached to the suites in the central area at Heathrow. I will certainly convey your Lordships' opinion to the British Airports Authority. My noble friend is quite correct; I understand that there is an additional VIP facility, as he described, and I shall check whether a name might be applied to that facility.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the market value, as estimated by the local authorities of the 171,400 council dwellings sold between 1st April 1979 and 30th September 1981.

My Lords, the department's estimate of the market value of the 171,400 council dwellings sold in England and Wales is £2,640 million.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether this does not mean that something like £1,900 million of public property has been made available to private individuals?

My Lords, one can look at it in that way if one wishes. One might also look at the fact that the people who have bought them now own their own homes, which many feel is a very desirable state.

My Lords, speaking as one who is greatly in favour of private ownership, is that sufficient reason for expecting my fellow ratepayers to subsidise ownership? When the Government's account comes finally to be reckoned, will not this very large amount of public property made over to private individuals be added together with the hundreds of millions of pounds worth of publicly-owned industry which has also been made available to private individuals at less than market value?

My Lords, when one talks of "market value" one really has to talk about historic costs. Market value is a notional figure which has no meaning until a sale is made. One has to look at the historic costs of these dwellings to really ascertain whether a profit or a loss has been made. That, surely, is a better way to assess the real performance.

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that this marks a singular advance towards the attainment of a property-owning democracy?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I certainly do agree.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no one in private industry would ever be guided by historic costs? There has been inflation for years. How can the historic cost be of any importance when what matters is how much the property can be sold for at the present time?

My Lords, I would hardly have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would press the point about how much the property could have been sold for at the present time when it is the policy of the party opposite not to sell at all.

My Lords, is it not a fact that as a result of these sales there is no question of the ratepayer subsidising them? Ratepayers have now been relieved of sums of money, since the upkeep, painting and repair of these houses is now undertaken by private owners, who are very proud of their houses.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I certainly endorse his remarks.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what consultations they are having with our EEC partners with a view to reaching agreement on a date for phasing out lead in petrol.

My Lords, in May last year the Government announced a reduction in the maximum permitted lead content of petrol from 0·4 to 0·15 grammes per litre to take effect by 31st December 1985. The Government chose this option as the quickest way in which to achieve the largest reduction in lead emissions. A European Community working party is, however, assessing the need and scope for, and consequences of, a reduction in polluting exhaust emissions from vehicles, including lead, and the United Kingdom is taking an active part in this study.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful Answer. Nevertheless, does he not agree that there is now unequivocal medical evidence of the highly detrimental effect which lead in petrol has on children's health? Will he not accept that, if the Government cannot persuade the EEC to change its directive on the lead content of petrol, the Government would be justified in taking action to set a date to remove lead from petrol in Britain, citing at the same time Article 26 of the Treaty of Rome in defence of their action?

My Lords, I am afraid I would not agree with the noble Baroness that the evidence is unequivocal. High levels of exposure to lead are certainly dangerous, but the working party on Lead and Health chaired by Professor Lawther reported that the evidence of harmful effects of low level exposure was not conclusive. More research work is in hand in a search for greater certainty, and, as a further indication of the Government's determination to tackle the problem root and branch, a wide range of measures is being taken to abate lead pollution from a variety of sources.

My Lords, while not doubting my noble friend's and the Government's desire to eliminate lead in petrol when it is found to be a cause of damage to the human brain, would he bear in mind that there are far too many people in this country suffering from mental handicap for which the causes cannot be established, and, when there is a cause that seems likely to be established, will the Government please take it very seriously indeed?

My Lords, indeed I take note of my noble friend's remarks. It is important to reduce people's exposure to environmental lead as far as possible and as quickly as possible, and that is what the Government believe they are doing.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, at the time of the report by Professor Lawther to which he referred, the Conservation Society, of which I have the honour to be president, issued a counter report, entitled Lead or Health, in which it was clearly demonstrated that Lawther had failed to take into consideration some of the evidence which is available from the United States and Australia on the effects of exposure of children to low levels of lead in the environment, and that, since Lawther reported, new evidence had become available tending to the same conclusion, that the effects on children of small quantities of lead are extremely harmful and cause behavioural and intellectual disturbances which parents in this country are no longer prepared to tolerate.

My Lords, indeed we are aware of the various findings which have been produced more recently, but, as I said, further research work is in hand. The Medical Research Council and the Department of the Environment are both supporting specific studies on the effect on children of low-level exposure to lead. We still believe that the steps the Government took last May are the most apposite for us to take at the moment.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Minister which countries throughout the world now have lead-free petrol?

My Lords, indeed the noble Baroness may. The two I have in mind are the United States and Japan. I believe Australia also has it, and I think there is one other country. But if the noble Baroness wishes to draw from the fact that they have lead-free petrol that that is because of health hazards, she is, of course, wrong.

My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that in his Answer he gave the quantities in litres. Can we not have it in gallons? I apologise for being British.

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is quite able to translate it himself.

My Lords, the noble Earl said that it was not for health reasons that these countries had lead-free petrol. May I ask him for what reasons they do have it?

My Lords, it is because of the smog; the catalysts which are necessary in order to get rid of smog are no use when there is lead in petrol.

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is also true that having lead-free petrol means having very large engines which are very expensive in energy?

My Lords, I do not think it means having larger engines, but it does mean considerable research, and this is one of the reasons why the Government took the steps they did in order to get the position of two-thirds less as soon as possible.

My Lords, will the Government take into full account the strength of public opinion on this matter, which is overwhelmingly in favour of getting rid of lead in petrol?

My Lords, of course the Government are aware of the public pressure.

My Lords, the Minister said that the countries which have lead-free petrol have it in order to get rid of smog. May I ask him, is not smog harmful to health?

My Lords, indeed it has a health factor, but not, I think the noble Lord would agree, as lead has.

My Lords, as the noble Earl said in his original reply that the Government thought that the measures they were taking were the quickest way to deal with this matter, does not that show that there is some urgency and why did not the Government go further?

My Lords, in May of last year the Government embarked on a positive policy. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember the Statement made at the time, which set out what that was.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one other point? Would he not agree that, unless our motor industry starts to think of manufacturing cars to run on lead-free petrol, they will become even less competitive with Japanese cars, designed to run on both kinds of petrol, which are selling massively all over Europe?

My Lords, the noble Baroness's original Question was about the European Community, and we do have to go in step with them. The research which I mentioned in my original reply to the noble Baroness underlines that point.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will congratulate British Airways and the British Airports Authority on the effectiveness of the improvised arrangements in recent weeks for handling baggage at Heathrow, which have greatly assisted passengers, including disabled people.

My Lords, I am glad that, despite the present dispute at Heathrow. inconvenience to air travellers has been kept to a minimum. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in this dispute, but I do hope that in everyone's interest a settlement will be reached very soon.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his perceptive and helpful reply. Is he aware that volunteers, including pilots and other aircrew, have been helping to maintain this essential service on the ground? Is my noble friend further aware that passengers who are unable to carry their own baggage, such as the elderly, have benefited also from the disappearance, during this period, of the pilfering which has been so deplorable a feature of Heathrow in the past?

My Lords, in reply to my noble friend's first question, I understand that it is indeed the case that other members of the British Airways staff have assisted in various duties which are normally carried out by the ramp workers. As to my noble friend's second question, there have been reports on the point he has indicated, but I am afraid we should require verification from British Airways management themselves.

My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is indeed a pleasant change when the travelling public is considered in these matters? Would he further agree that in disputes such as these it is always the person in the middle, wherever the dispute may be, who suffers? Finally, would he feel able to congratulate those people in British Airways who have contributed to this action and who have done it either instead of their own jobs or in their own free time? In addition, as I understand it, British Airways did not offer any payment for this until after the volunteers themselves had begun their work.

My Lords, in so far as British Airways are not always aware of the comments of the noble Baroness, I shall certainly draw to their attention the noble Baroness's remarks.

My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind what my noble kinsman said in his supplementary, that there has been a very large diminution in pilfering? Would he at least encourage the trade unions, when they come back and do some work, to follow the very good example of the volunteers?

My Lords, I can endeavour to bring the remarks of both my noble friends to the attention of British Airways, but, as there is to be a meeting of the union side tomorrow, I do not think that I should go any further on that this afternoon.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it has been widely reported that as many as 50 cases each week are reported of robbery from or within baggage going through London Airport? Is it not a fact that, since the volunteers took over, that figure has dropped from 50 to nought? This is a highly effective and responsible action by those volunteers.

My Lords, I do not know from where my noble friend obtains his information, but it is a trifle dangerous to suggest that something is, indeed, a fact, when it may not be. But I shall give the assurance, which I gave to both of my noble friends, that I will bring his remarks, together with theirs, to the attention of British Airways.

My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will defer his visit to Israel".

My Lords, in view of the fact that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary cannot be at the House today and that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has only recently arrived at the House, I shall, with the leave of the House, arrange for my noble friend to answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon.

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

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment he discharged.—(Lord Fletcher).

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness for the way she has moved her amendment and for the detailed explanation she has given in justification of it. So far as the amendment itself is concerned, I believe she is right in saying that this is a tidying-up amendment. I ought to say that, while I speak for the Opposition, by the nature of this Bill my noble friends will of course themselves consider the matters drawn to their attention and decide and vote accordingly. From my own position of what is a new term of benevolent neutrality, if there are Divisions, I may not be noticeable in the Division Lobby.

The noble Baroness is bringing before the Committee an issue of great importance. Indeed, the noble Lord the Minister, in the Second Reading debate on 9th February, at column 166, said:

"I…genuinely thank my noble friend again for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue, which is of major social and commercial importance"

I am sure your Lordships' Committee would not wish a matter of that dimension to pass through without having certain assurances and information regarding the background of the noble Baroness's investigation into the matters which she has drawn to our attention. Indeed, she has just said that she is keenly mindful of the interests of shopworkers. That kind of comment is reassuring but it would be useful, and helpful to her in my neutrality, if she would give the Committee a little more information about the background.

In her Second Reading speech, the noble Baroness said that she claimed the right of freedom of shops to open and close when they wish. That of course is inherent in the measure. The noble Baroness will appreciate that there are at least three parties in a business partnership. They include not only shopkeepers but the workers in the shop, who are involved in the enterprise as well as the customers.

On the last occasion, when we debated this on Second Reading, we had information regarding the views of some of the consumers from the National Consumer Council. At the same time, customers are also workers, and they include many people who are members of families and who may wonder how this measure will change the pattern of their family life if they have to work—because there appears to be very little choice about whether one works later in the evenings, or has any religious or other scruples about working on Sunday. Regardless of the religious or other dimensions of the matter, it could substantially change the pattern of family life as we know it in this country. While we want to enjoy to the maximum leisure and other facilities, we may not, as workers, wish to contribute in the way the measure may demand and where we may have no choice.

The dilemma facing your Lordships' Committee is that the present law is indefensible and is unenforceable. This point, I thought, had the unanimous support of the House when the noble Baroness brought forward this Bill on Second Reading. As the Government have refused to give us what I, and many, think is a long-needed and comprehensive review of the present position, we may feel inclined to think that this is the only alternative to that situation and that we ought to do something about it on this occasion.

There are a number of other important amendments before the Committee which are not contrary to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 of the noble Baroness, and undoubtedly those who have tabled the amendments will be speaking in support of them when the time comes. When we debated the matter on Second Reading, several questions were put to the noble Baroness which still require a reply. One important question concerned consultation which the noble Baroness has had, or not had, with the industry and the trade itself. This Bill will radically affect the trade and all those involved in it, whether as employers or employees, or as customers. Have all the trading and business organisations been consulted and are they happy about the prospect of unfettered trading? What about the Churches? What about the representatives of the Jewish and other faiths?

The noble Baroness mentioned the Board of Deputies. I am not sure how much consultation there was before the amendment was tabled. What about the retail trade? Of course there is more than one category. It includes the small shopkeepers, the medium-sized people, businesses generally, and the multiples. Are they all happy about the prospect, if some of their competitors wish to open late at night, or to have an all-day Sunday opening of shops, that they will be able to compete without any undue effect on prices, with overtime, energy and other costs which may be involved? It would be helpful if we were to be told of the consultation which has taken place with the trade.

Then, what about the men and women who work in the shops? Has the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has nearly half a million members, been consulted? What observations has it made to the noble Baroness, apart from the letters which some of your Lordships have had since the Bill was first tabled early in the year?

I noticed that, in a letter of 29th January of this year, USDAW says:

"It is the considered view of the union's 440,000 members that there is no real or genuine need for the abolition of the major part of the 1950 shops legislation as proposed in the current Bill".

It goes on to claim that many shopworkers would be placed at a social disadvantage when they are required to work on Saturdays and Sundays. They go on to refer to the important economic and social consequences which a measure of this sort would bring.

These are some of the misgivings which have been expressed. I think your Lordships would not wish it to be thought that we passs legislation of this sort without some assurance that all those who may be affected have been asked to give their views and that the views expressed have been taken into account. I suggest that the TUC might have been consulted. It is not only the matter of the shopworkers, the people who work behind the counter, that we are considering here today. There are the supply units: the people who drive the lorries and the vans to re-fill the shelves in our supermarkets; the people in the banks who will have to cash cheques and provide the money and collect the takings. I know that there are often means whereby this can be done without human intervention, but these are some of the services which may be affected. The Post Office, which is mentioned in the schedule among the changes, may be required later when the pattern of trading changes to provide their services. The transport services are important; the security aspects; the police and fire brigades, and others.

The local authorities are affected, too, because we shall have the need for car parks to be open on Sundays when people buy their bedroom suites on a Sunday evening and other goods at a later time in the day, or all day Sunday when the facilities become available. Car parking attendants are involved. A wide range of people will be affected if this legislation goes through.

Although the noble Baroness claims that the number of hours overall which workers work may not be affected, to a football enthusiast who wants to see a match on a Saturday afternoon the prospect of having Tuesday off is not something which is likely to make him feel very pleased. Without straying on to some amendment which we shall discuss later, even in matters of conscience it is difficult to define the areas of loyalty relating to various aspects of our lives. Therefore, we have other areas of conflict as well, all of which require certain assurances that a wide range of organisations and representatives have been consulted by the noble Baroness.

If people are to shop later and if business hours generally are to be unlimited, then the prospect, for instance, of people wanting to drink in public houses at later hours may require those establishments staying open until midnight or even later. I do not know whether publicans and the licensed trade have been consulted about that. Just as some publicans dread the thought of one or two drinkers sipping their pints until gone midnight, it may be that those who supply other needs in shops may not wish to stay open late simply because their competitors are open.

I question whether the totality of goods and services provided will be any greater because shops are open much later, when, if we knew they were closing earlier, we could get our shopping done earlier, with no great inconvenience to those who have to serve us in those shops. On the other hand, the tourist trade must be taken into account—the changing pattern of needs throughout the country—and in some areas the tourist trade makes special demands which are not being met in an altogether satisfactory way at the moment, as the noble Baroness and others have said as a justification for the proposed change.

Those are a few questions on which it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could give some indication of the action that has been taken already. Many noble Lords will be sorry that the Government have said they are unable to take any action at present on a matter which many consider requires a comprehensive review. It may be that after the present stage of the Bill the Government will reconsider their view in that respect. In the meantime, it would be helpful if the Committee could have replies to some questions, of which I gave notice on Second Reading, about what the Government have rightly described as a matter of major social and commercial importance.

I had not intended to intervene in the debates on the Bill in any way, although I was occupied with the subject for many years. I suggest, with respect, that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, was in the nature of a Second Reading speech. Accordingly, if my noble friend Lady Trumpington tried to answer all the questions asked by the noble Lord we might get into a muddle. Nearly all the points he raised arise on later amendments and therefore it would be of help, certainly to me—it would stop me, and possibly the Committee, from getting muddled—if my noble friend dealt with those points when we come to those later amendments.

I had considered raising those points on the clause stand part, but by then a number of amendments would have been discussed and the noble Baroness might have been at a disadvantage, wondering whether some of the points I put had been taken into account.

We on these Benches greatly welcome the amendment. The reservations we expressed on Second Reading were due to the fact that we were not sufficiently reassured about the position of workers, and the amendment goes a long way to allaying those fears.

It might be convenient if commented on the two amendments which the Committee is discussing, because my noble friend Lady Trumpington was good enough to express appreciation for help with the drafting. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, drew attention to certain deficiencies in the drafting of my noble friend's Bill, particularly references to parts of the 1950 Act which are to be repealed as well as references to parts which would remain if the Bill were enacted. The point was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, along with the suggestion that the Government might give my noble friend help with drafting, should she wish to have such help. The amendments follow discussions I had with my noble friend.

In very simple terms—I say this because it is a few minutes since my noble friend explained the effect of the amendment—as I understand the position, Amendment No. 1 will preserve certain exemptions and Amendment No. 2, taken with the schedule which is Amendment No. 7, will extend some protections for terms and conditions of service. The drafting of all those amendments is in line with the undertaking I gave on Second Reading—they tidy up the drafting—and, like the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, I do not think need spend more time on that.

I should like to comment, however, on the question of consultation because Lord Bishopston was really asking my noble friend with whom she consulted before bringing the Bill before your Lordships' House. While cannot, of course, answer for my noble friend on that, I am sure she had in mind the fact that when the Home Office conducted their review—it was a departmental, not a public, review—we had discussions with certain interested parties. Discussions were held at official level with interested parties who heard about the review and got in touch with us; the Retail Consortium, British Multiple Retailers, National Federation of Meat Traders, Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Acts Administration, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Lord's Day Observance Society, British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. An omission from that list is the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, but we have made it known to that union that the Home Office would not embark on public legislation unless we had warned the union that we were intending to do so.

It was as a result of that departmental review that my right honourable friend decided—indeed, announced in the House of Commons—that, with regret, he could not embark on public legislation because he did not think there was sufficient agreement among all interested parties and the general public for the Government to introduce a public Bill. However, on behalf of my right honourable friend I made it clear for the Government on Second Reading that we found no point of principle as to why the Government should not be benevolently neutral—indeed, as friendly as possible—towards my noble friend's Bill. The reason for that was that the Home Office review had thrown up the fact that in Scotland the same situation regarding Sunday trading did not apply. The Home Office review had borne out the conclusions of the recent inquiry conducted by the National Consumer Council that the current pattern of trading in Scotland was very similar to that in England and Wales, the only difference being that in Scotland it was being carried on solely within the law.

It was for that reason, almost more than any other, that we felt we wanted to be as helpful as possible in debate with my noble friend. That is why I say, with respect, to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that a great many of the questions he asked fall. If the sort of legislation that my noble friend Lady Trumpington has in mind were to reach the statute book, I do not think that many of the problems the noble Lord foresees would in fact come to pass.

I welcome the noble Lord's benevolent neutrality. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, I am certainly not ducking any of his questions but I would ask him whether we may stick to the point of the two amendments with which I have dealt so far. If at any later stage he wishes to come back on any point, I shall be glad to answer.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she accept from me that I believe that her contribution and the Minister's comments a few moments ago will be helpful to her and to the Committee as background when we discuss other amendments.

moved Amendment No. 2:

I think that this might be a good moment to take the Private Notice Question. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, for a second time, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will defer his visit to Israel".

My Lords, may I first apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place about half an hour ago, when it would have been appropriate to answer this Question, but I think that the noble Lord and the House will know the reasons for that. The Answer to the Question is as follows: No, my Lords. We have taken careful note of representations requesting my noble friend Lord Carrington to cancel his visit to Israel because of the situation on the West Bank. We deplore the dismissal of the democratically-elected mayors and have called for an end to the violence. However, we believe that it would be wholly unproductive to cut off communications with Israel at a time when it is vital to try to persuade the Israeli Government to show restraint and work for an overall settlement.

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, may I ask whether he is aware that the Foreign Secretary's efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in Palestine have been widely admired, but that, no matter how toughly he talks when he gets to Israel, the mere fact that he is willing to make a courtesy call at this time is bound to help Mr. Begin to resist his critics and to continue colonising and oppressing the Arabs in Gaza and on the West Bank? Is it really appropriate that a British Foreign Secretary should pay a friendship visit to a Government whose international conduct is so widely condemned, universally condemned, and which is indeed so outrageous?

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a very strong feeling in the country and in the House that, precisely because of the dangers and difficulties in the Middle East at the moment, we feel it is essential that his noble friend should carry out his visit to Israel? The most productive gesture that could be made at this time of great danger would be for the PLO to declare formally its belief that the state of Israel should exist, particularly since there are many Israelis who do not approve of their own Government's methods on the West Bank. Will the noble Lord urge his noble friend to repeat that plea to the PLO?

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I would say that my noble friend's visit will be considerably more than a mere courtesy visit, as he suggested. It will of course be an opportunity for an exchange of views at the highest level within Israel. Not only will my noble friend be able to convey his views to the Israeli Government, but the visit will be of great value to him to hear their views at first hand as well. It is, I think, important to maintain the dialogue in this situation and not to cut off communication, as would happen if the visit were to be cancelled.

With regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, I certainly agree with her that it would be of the greatest value if the PLO could, for example, be persuaded to accept the right of Israel to existence as a state, and in the same context it would be of great value for the Israelis to undertake a dialogue with the PLO.

My Lords, while I quite understand the reluctance of the Foreign Secretary to cancel his proposed visit to Israel, will he take the opportunity of the visit to express to his Israeli hosts his strong displeasure, and I should hope also that of the European Economic Community, at the recent dismissal of many Arab mayors by the Israeli authorities, and at the imposition of what on the face of it seems very like martial law on the West Bank of the Jordan?

My Lords, we view the developments on the West Bank with grave concern, and we deplore the dismissal by the Israeli military authorities of the democratically-elected mayors of Nablus and Ramallah, as well as the earlier dismissal of the mayor of El-Birch. We have again appealed—and I would do so now, if I may—for an end to the violence there. It can only harm the prospects of a settlement which gives the Palestinian people the right to choose their own future.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that whether or not the Foreign Secretary visits Israel, whatever intentions he may have—whether he intends to visit Israel, or remains away from Israel—there is not the slighest prospect of peace in the Middle East until the Arab countries, whether collectively or individually, decided to recognise the state of Israel? Let there be no doubt about this: I say it with the utmost emphasis in meaning what I say—and backing Begin, if necessary—there must be an assurance that Israel's security is assured, while at the same time there is a readiness to enter into negotiations. Let that not be forgotten—and Camp David provides for it; let that not be forgotton, either. Until such assurances are given, there is not the slightest prospect of peace in the Middle East. There is also a danger. If, whether in this House or elsewhere, there are some people who, for some reason or another known to themselves but unknown to other people, continue to attack Israel, or anybody associated with Israel, they will not promote peace; they will make for war.

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that the Israelis are entitled to the kind of assurances to which he has referred. But one must say that one of the sources from which they seek the assurance—namely, the PLO—is one organisation with which they refuse to have any dialogue at all.

My Lords, bearing in mind the word "outrageous" used by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may I ask the Minister whether it is not outrageous that most of the Arab countries still consider that they are at war with Israel, and that all the Arab countries, with the exception of Egypt, do not recognise her Government or her existence?

My Lords, that is really an extension of the point that I think was being made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, but I should prefer not to use words such as "outrageous" in any context in the Middle East situation, hoping that we can move forward to a consensus agreement in due course.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will convey to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, how sincerely we appreciate his initiative, in particular through the European Community, for a solution of this problem by recognising both Israeli frontiers and the Palestinians' right to self-determination? But is it not the case that this visit, at this time, might prejudice the conclusion of such an arrangement? In view of what is happening on the West Bank, might it not antagonise Arab feeling, which is growing in favour of the proposal, and might it not strengthen the position of the Begin Government when they are in crisis on this very issue?

My Lords, one of the purposes of the visit of my noble friend will be to convey to the Israeli Government the views of the British Government on the various events that have been taking place recently, in particular the most unhappy events on the West Bank, and I think that, if the visit were to be cancelled, that opportunity would be lost. I am firmly convinced, I must say, that the way forward is to maintain a dialogue with all the parties to this dispute, for to cut them off, as is suggested in the Question, would not contribute to that end.

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that by virtue of the fact that, happily, Israel is a free democracy, the views which have been expressed in this House which are critical of happenings in the West Bank have been freely expressed in the Israeli press and certainly freely expressed in the Parliament of Israel, where a substantial vote on this very issue was registered against Government policy last week?

My Lords, of course it is true that Israel is, happily, a democracy, and hopefully the views of their Government will reflect the views of the Israeli people.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are distinctions between not making a courtesy visit and cutting off all communications, which is not, I think, suggested by anyone? But is he also aware that his replies about the need for reciprocal recognition will be very warmly welcomed—the PLO must of course recognise Israel, but reciprocally the Israelis must recognise the PLO—and that in this context his statement, in striking contrast to the statements of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, produces a hope for the future? But, really, one cannot expect the PLO to recognise Israel when Mr. Begin says repeatedly that even if they do the Israelis will never recognise the PLO.

My Lords, the PLO is not, of course, a state as we would understand it, and therefore the concept of recognition may not be precisely the right description of the relationship which should be evolved with that organisation. What we have said, and what I repeat now, is that there is no prospect of peace in the Middle East without taking into account the views of the PLO, who clearly represent a substantial portion of Palestinian opinion.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, talks about my not having a future, I have a far better future in comparison with his awful past?

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we all look forward to an indefinite future for the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell?

moved Amendment No. 3:

In purely emotional terms it would be my desire to applaud and support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. On the face of it, his amendment supports my declared desire to make sure that no shopworker suffers any hardship as a result of my Bill. Having said that, I find that in practical terms I cannot commend this amendment to your Lordships on the following grounds. Terms of employment are not regulated by the Home Office, and my Bill is entirely a matter for the Home Office.

Were the noble Lord to seek to make such a requirement law, then I would suggest he would have to frame his own Bill, addressed to the appropriate Ministry or Ministries; but were he to do so, he would find that he would have to include postal workers, transport workers and many other different kinds of workers. Therefore, a shopworker who felt himself to be victimised or unfairly dismissed on such grounds could appeal through already existing channels. So I fear that I must therefore turn down the noble Lord's amendment on the grounds that it is inappropriate in the context of my Bill.

I should like to point out that I would have difficulty here. Perhaps I had better declare an interest on the pharmaceutical side. Local radio and newspapers now tell you, weekly, which chemist's shops are open on a Sunday; and it may be of absolutely vital importance that a particular drug is available on a Sunday in shop X, which may be open anywhere in a particular area in Britain. As your Lordships' know, reports are given out regularly as to which chemists' shops are open on a Sunday.

While I agree in exactly the same emotional way with the noble Baroness, I think we have to be very careful here, particularly in this area of pharmaceutical services to the public. It may be a matter of life and death, and, consequently, the religious issue would have to be worked out inside the chemist's shop. I do not know how it would be done. I think the Lord cured on the sabbath day anyway. The right reverend Prelate will perhaps tell me whether I am correct in my recollection of the Scriptures.

I quite agree with my noble friend that we have to be careful in these matters. Nevertheless, I should like to support the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has moved. On Saturday I listened to some very cogent words from the right honourable lady the Prime Minister about the permissive society and the social deterioration that has set in since the early permissive legislation of the right honourable Member for Hillhead. I look at these matters with the greatest degree of generosity, but it seems to me that the Bill which the noble Baroness is bringing forward is part of this permissive trend and is part of the social deterioration that has been taking place over the last 10, 20 or 30 years.

Of course the present legislation about shop opening is unsatisfactory. There are two ways of dealing with that unsatisfactory position. One is the way chosen by the noble Baroness—which is to throw up one's hands and say that anything goes, open when you like, let us have a free for all! That is one way. But I think that if we choose that way then social values will continue to deteriorate. I see the noble Baroness shakes her head. I do not want to get into a Second Reading speech, but I compare that sort of situation with that in the town where I was born, where on a Sunday morning when I was a schoolboy all that could be heard were the church bells ringing.

It is very different today and much less satisfactory. The noble Baroness is encouraging this deterioration in social values. To some extent, the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has moved is trying to sustain something which I thought we all valued in this country, especially conservatives. To that extent, I am glad to support what he has moved and I hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment.

I should like in general to support this amendment. I think, however, that it is somewhat defective. It refers to Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday; but we are a multiracial society with a number of different religions, and if we are to have a clause of this kind in the Bill—and I hope we shall—it should be drafted in such a way that all religious scruple should be taken into account: that of Jews, Moslems, and the other religions which we now have in this country. I believe that the purpose of this Bill is correct, but I believe also that it should include a clause to make it possible for those people who on conscientious grounds feel they do not wish to work on these days, not to do so.

I do not understand the point that the noble Baroness made with regard to this being a Home Office Bill. Once it is a Bill and then an Act, it is the law of the land; it does not belong to the Home Office. If we want to put in religious exemptions for people with religious scruples, then this becomes part of the law of the land whether the Home Office like it or not. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, may consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage, in order that it can be reconsidered on broader grounds to cover the points that I have made, and then brought up again at a later stage.

In moving this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, referred to the fact that one of the parts to be omitted from the original Act did away with certain provisions which affected the Jewish faith. I think that that underlines the importance of what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just said: that it would appear that there is ground for revising this in a more general way without the particular emphasis that the noble Lord has put on this amendment. I would support the noble Baroness in asking that he think about it again between now and the next stage of the Bill.

I must declare an interest in that I try to be a Christian and a Catholic—sometimes that is very difficult with some of the people one has to contend with. I am very intrigued by the fact that this is to be put into this Bill. As I have said before, there would be no electricity or transport or telephone service on Sundays if somebody did not work. Already thousands of people have to work. I merely ask whether they have this right to say that they are Christians and do not wish to work. I am not going to say that it is right or wrong; but why do we select one particular trade or profession in inserting a qualification like this?

Listening to the speeches which have recently been made, I ask myself whether in those parts the relevant laws of which do not include such an exemption as is proposed by the noble Lord's initiative, there has been a marked contrasting effect as regards permissiveness and the deterioration of public morality. I have not observed it.

Although I am very sympathetic to this amendment, I am a little concerned about its effect on smaller shops where no alternative labour is easily available. It is doubtful whether it would prevent dismissal or the threat of dismissal from being imposed. Perhaps the Minister would give us some guidance as to whether these workers would be protected under the existing law.

I think I can answer that question off the cuff; but what occurs to me on hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is that I think his speech chimes in very well with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, which suggested that in businesses which are depended upon for producing vital articles—and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, gave the example of a chemist's shop—which are probably not going to be particularly large businesses, it is necessary for the matter to be worked out at local level. It is with that point of view that I think the Government strongly agree.

I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said. Obviously any number of people must work on Sundays to provide electricity, gas and water and all the other things which go to make up a decent civilised life. I do not want to get into theology but I cannot see that people who are prepared to do those jobs on Sundays are acting wrongly in terms of the Christian faith or any other faith. I intervene because I think that what has been said so far applies to farming, where we have a responsibility for animals which have to be fed, milked and looked after. One should think very carefully, I believe, before agreeing to something of this kind which other people would claim should be extended to their operations.

I should like to reply first to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I hope she will forgive me; I agree that I made a mistake. I am so very young in this House, but I take her point. I tried to bring out the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. Why shopworkers, and why not all the others? I believe that in its application to this pluralistic society in which we live this amendment is too narrow. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will agree that he has received a very sympathetic hearing and will withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for those final remarks, and I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken. To deal with one or two points that have been raised, the original objection raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that this would raise technical complications, is in a way more the problem of the sponsor of the Bill than my problem. It is the noble Baroness who is sweeping away the present law and creating a number of problems—solving some, I agree—and all we can do is put down amendments to the best of our ability and at a subsequent stage resolve any difficulties.

I take the point about differentiating between various kinds of workers. Regarding the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, there is all the difference between farm workers, who naturally have to work on a shift system seven days a week, and shopworkers who do not.

Regarding other faiths, I did not feel that I was qualified to speak for them. However, I take the point. I accept the misgivings expressed by the Committee. I should like to consider the points which have been raised and, with the Committee's permission, withdraw the amendment, bearing in mind the possibility of raising it again after further consideration at Report stage.

Amendment No. 4:

May I interrupt? Does it logically and completely cover the garden centre when garden tools and accessories are not mentioned? This illustrates that it is almost impossible to produce a schedule which does not draw arbitrary lines.

What I said—and what I repeat—is this: if the garden centre also wants to be a hardware shop and a builders' merchants, it can be up until one o'clock on a Sunday. Similarly, the builders' merchants and hardware shop could open until one o'clock. After one o'clock the garden centre could only sell the goods indicated in the schedule.

The third change which has been made is in relation to holiday resorts. Under the present Act, the local authorities are given power to make orders in which they can authorise the sale of photographic materials, commodities needed for swimming and bathing, food and so on. That is a very limited range. This amendment gives local authorities power to make an order for a shop in that resort to sell everything it wants, but, during the holiday season, and the holiday season is taken to be as it is under the present law—18 Sundays a year—

Would the noble Lord forgive me? Is there a definition of what is a holiday resort?

On that, we have retained the existing provisions of the present law: we have made no change. The fourth thing we have done, having improved the law to make it much more satisfactory, is to introduce fines for contravention of the law. Those fines are given in the amendment. I should like to say to those people who want seven-day free trading: you have to take into account the views of the retailer and the shop-worker, and by this amendment you are getting 93 per cent. of what you want. If this amendment is adopted we have free trade for 6½ days and on a time basis that is thirteen-fourteenths, or 93 per cent. So this amendment is conceding to those who want complete freedom for 7 days a week 93 per cent. of what they want.

We have also had from the consumer lobby agitation that we should be the same as Scotland. This amendment goes beyond the Scottish position. In Scotland at present you can have 6½ days' trading in the week, but you are subject to restrictions. On one day of the week you have to close at 9 o'clock and on the other days you have to close at 8 o'clock; so it is not completely free for 6½ days. But this amendment is giving complete freedom for Q, days without any restriction, and so it is going beyond the Scottish position. There is one point of difference. Whereas in Scotland at present the half-day for closing may be any day of the week, depending on where you are in Scotland, in this amendment in England and Wales the proposed half-day would be Sunday afternoon. Other than that, this amendment would give greater freedom than the law allows in Scotland.

There will be Members of this Committee who object to Sunday trading on either social or religious grounds, or both. I would say that we are with you in heart, but we believe this is the best way of doing it. If those who take that view act stubbornly and say: "No, we are going to have no change", eventually we shall reach the position where a free-for-all will be inflicted upon us whether we want it or not. We believe the best way is to be flexible and reasonable. Therefore, we suggest that the best way of avoiding the commercialisation of Sunday is to compromise, to have trading until 1 p.m. We believe that if there is trading until 1 p.m. only the small traders will be interested. There is no reason why the small traders should not be open to oblige the housewife until 1 p.m. if they want to. The multiples, the department stores and the hypermarkets would not be interested because of the closing at 1 p.m.

We believe that this amendment would avoid the commercialisation of Sunday. Let nobody tell me that we are unlikely to get the commercialisation of Sunday. After seeing what has happened in certain states in America, I am fairly certain that we would get it. There are towns in America where the sale starts at 2 p.m. on Sundays as a regular thing and the high streets are busier than they are on Saturdays. That commercialisation would be avoided by this amendment and I therefore commend it to your Lordships.

In addition, I would say that if the Bill goes down the corridor to the other place with this amendment embodied in it, it will be regarded for what it is—an honest attempt to compromise, to be flexible and to have a bit of give-and-take and reach an agreement which is giving something to everybody and is not just one-sided. Because it is an honest attempt at compromise, it may get more support than has been given to shop Bills over the past 20 years. But if the Bill goes along the corridor without this amendment or some similar amendment, then it will be regarded for what it is—an attempt by the consumer activist lobby to impose their view on the retail trade and on the community in general, whether they want it or not, and it will suffer the same fate as other Bills have suffered in the past 20 years. That is my case and I present it for the consideration of the Committee.

Let me say at once that I greatly welcome the significant shift of opinion which is represented in the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has so ably and courteously moved. Until recently certain interests have been implacably opposed to any change in the present law about shop hours, and in particular about Sunday trading. I do not say that the noble Lord is a spokesman for all those interests, and I dare say that at least some of them are still implacably opposed. Nevertheless, I greatly welcome the acceptance, which is implicit in this amendment, of the idea that all shops in England and Wales should be allowed to open at least on Sunday mornings.

However, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, with whom he has consulted? With regard to the opposition en bloc of chambers of commerce, he is, if I may say so, wrong because I have had consultations with, and the utmost support from, the Croydon Chamber of Commerce, for instance. My noble friend the Minister, following the original speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, really said it all with regard to consultation, from my point of view. However, I have carried out certain consultations of my own—of course I have—and I have consulted certain members of the different Churches. I have actually been telephoned by members of the Jewish faith and the retail trade, certainly; but it takes two to tango and I may say that USDAW has not seen fit to tango with me!

If, as I understand it to be the case, it is now the view of the Co-operative movement that shops should be allowed to open on Sunday mornings, that represents a considerable change of heart on their part, or at least it represents a public expression, for the first time so far as I know, of the acceptance of the idea of Sunday trading. It may well be that it deserves the accolade of that somewhat over-used epithet and should be called "a breakthrough". Although the amendment does not go quite so far as having the support of the shop workers' union, USDAW, it has what I might call the next best thing. Coming as it does from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it is a matter of the greatest consequence in the long battle for the reform of the shop hours law.

I am tempted to accept the compromise which is offered in the form of this amendment. It would certainly be a great improvement on the present position, and it could very well be that if the Bill goes through in its present form almost all shops who wish to trade on Sundays will open only on Sunday mornings and that their purposes—and, more importantly, those of their customers—would be met by a change in the law such as that represented by this amendment.

I wish therefore that I could accept the amendment, but I regret that I cannot. The reason is this: the whole principle on which this Bill is based is that it is not for Parliament, not for Ministers, not for councils, not for bureaucrats, not for consumer organisations or anybody else to dictate to shops when they are to open and when they are to close for trade. Ours is a free society—or it is meant to be—and unless there are powerful reasons why a person should not do what he wants to, then he should be allowed to do it. I simply do not see why the law should dictate to a shopkeeper, whether he likes it or not, that he must be closed on a Sunday afternoon. It is, in point of principle, just as inappropriate as dictating to him that he must be closed on a Sunday morning. We have no business at all to dictate to him. We wish to give to the shopkeepers of England and Wales the freedom and the opportunities which are already available to the shopkeepers of Scotland. That is the main reason why I am, with regret, unable to accept this amendment.

I now come on to consider some of the other provisions which are proposed by this amendment. The noble Lord puts forward a set of exemptions to the Sunday closing requirements, which are set out in the schedule. These have a sadly familiar look to them. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that some of the more glaring anomalies found in the Fifth Schedule to the 1950 Act have been removed, but many nonsenses remain. Let me point out just one or two. We start, as always, with intoxicating liquors. They always seem to rank first in any list of this kind. They are still there, and I congratulate the noble Lord, on agreeing that they should continue to be sold even on a Sunday afternoon. But I fail to see why they are singled out in preference, for instance, to tinned baby food. It will remain the law, under the noble Lord's proposals, that a mother may buy gin for herself but not tinned milk powder for her baby. This is one of the anomalies in the present law, which are highlighted by those who have campaigned for an end to the present abominable absurdities, and it will remain one, even if the matter is improved in the way that the noble Lord now proposes.

Then I see that the noble Lord proposes that there should be an exemption for,

"(e) products without which it would not be possible to keep a vehicle (including a caravan) on the road, with corresponding arrangements for aircraft and boats".

That proposed exemption replaces one in the Fifth Schedule to the present Act, which states:

"(h) aircraft, motor, or cycle supplies or accessories".

What do we make of that? It seems to me that the noble Lord wishes to introduce boats and caravans to the present list of privileged means of transport which may be serviced on Sundays. Fine, but what about bicycles? The noble Lord seems to have eliminated them altogether. I do not know whether the noble Lord has anything against bicycles, or whether they have been left out of the list by mistake. But at one fell swoop, your Lordships' freedom to buy a puncture repair kit or a cycle pump on a Sunday after 1 p.m. has vanished.

If you happen to be cycling to Evensong to listen to an inspiring sermon, then in such circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, proposes that it should become a crime for you to buy such a kit or such a pump, or even a new inner tube, after 1 p.m. on a Sunday, even though both you and the cycle shop wish to trade in this innocent way, and even though it is permitted under the present law. What are we to make of that? I rather thought that, with the energy crisis and the recession, bicycles were coming back into use again on a large scale. The noble Lord is doing little to encourage them with his amendment.

The new schedule of exemptions does something to improve the lot of garden centres, as the noble Lord said when he mentioned them. But if I am with my family at a garden centre on a summer afternoon and buy some seeds and fertiliser, why should the garden centre have suddenly changed its nature just because I am there at two minutes past one? I simply cannot understand it. Why also has the noble Lord omitted that much-maligned partly cooked tripe from his list? I could go on. I could easily attract a few cheap laughs by pointing out further anomalies in the noble Lord's list of exemptions, but I do not wish to do that.

The noble Lord has striven manfully, or should I say nobly?, to produce a sensible list of exemptions but it cannot be done. It is inherent in any list of exemptions of this kind that absurdities and anomalies will arise. It is one of the main reasons why I want to see them all swept away. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, commands the greatest respect of all sides of this House, and outside this House as well. If he is unable to come up with a list of exemptions which make sense, which does not lend itself to the ridiculous, we then may safely conclude that it is beyond the wit of man to devise such a list. Therefore, I think we ought to conclude that the right course is to reject this approach altogether, and that is what the Bill does. I have not dealt with the other provisions in this amendment, but they are substantially to like effect. They tinker with the law where the bold approach is called for. With regret, therefore, I am unable to accept them.

When I hear that the employers and the trade unions are in agreement about something, I know that there is a snag in it and that somebody has to say that there is another interest which needs to be defended. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that we need to have an inquiry. We have been pressing for changes in the Shops Acts for at least 20 years. They have had 20 years in which to have this inquiry, and it has not come.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord has a seductive look at first sight. There is an attraction in the idea of continuing only until midday on Sunday, although, having regard to what we were talking about on a previous amendment, if it was attendance at church services that people were concerned about we might say that shops should keep shut until one o'clock and open on Sunday afternoon. That would he quite a powerful argument if we were to divide Sunday. But there can be no doubt that the noble Baroness is right and that this, for all its seductive appearance, is a wrecking amendment. It cuts across the whole purpose of this Bill, which is to leave it to the decision of the shopkeeper and his employees whether they will keep open or not, and they will make a judgment as to what their consumers want. I should like to make the point that it should not be assumed in this discussion that, because some shops keep open, all the others will be forced to do so. That is not what will happen. As for the schedule, the noble Baroness has said enough. The schedule simply enshrines the old schedule touched up, or tarted up, here and there to make it look like 1982. We do not want schedules of this kind. They are a nonsense. I fear that we on these Benches cannot support the amendment.

I venture to intervene on this new clause, because my first ministerial task was concerned with the 1957 Shops Bill—the abortive Bill. I then formed the view, from which I have never departed, that the present law is quite indefensible. It is riddled with anomaly; so riddled with anomaly that it is widely disregarded, and that brings the law generally into disrepute. Unfortunately, I could not attend the Second Reading of the noble Baroness's Bill, but I read the report of the debate with great interest and admiration. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, although apparently losing nothing of his strength of expression, showed a tendency to compromise; and this new clause is undoubtedly an attempt to compromise. I take with a pinch of salt his figure of 93 per cent. which he has conceded, because he is by that taking credit for such freedoms as are vouchsafed by the existing law. What he has done is to concede 50 per cent.

He rightly claims that his new clause gets rid of some of the anomalies. So it does. It gets rid of such of those anomalies as are shown by what happens in England and Wales before one o'clock. But after one o'clock, all the anomalies stand absolutely unimpaired. I was glad that the noble Baroness was not tempted by the noble Lord's blandishments to accept the amendment as a compromise. This Bill stands no chance, I fear, of passing into law this Session. No Government at this stage of a Parliament would risk touching sabbatarian opinion. So nothing is gained by yielding, as both noble Baronesses have pointed out, a whole mass of existing anomalies. That is my first reason for venturing to oppose this clause: that it perpetuates the anomalies which have brought the existing law, and thus the law generally, into disrepute.

My second reason is that it is quite unnecessary. That is shown if one looks at subsection (8) of the new clause. The new clause does not extend to Scotland. And rightly it does not extend to Scotland, because Scotland gets on perfectly well without a clause of this sort. When I was a Member of another place the most effective debater there was Aneurin Bevan. One of his most striking phrases was, "Why read the crystal when you can read the book?" As I read the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, some other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich had looked into the crystal ball and had been horrified by what they saw there. What they saw were shops open 11 hours a day, seven days a week, shop assistants tied to the counters for all those hours, their trade union quite impotent to help them, and the co-operative having to follow suit and similarly ill-use their employees.

In addition to the employment aspect, what was also seen in the crystal ball was the disruption of family life: a woeful falling-off from the dignity, the cohesion and the stability which at the moment marks family life in England and Wales. Naturally the noble Lord and those others who looked into the crystal ball were repelled by what they saw. But if they had not looked into the crystal ball and instead had read the book of Scotland they would have seen that those phantasmagoria were quite unnecessary and non-existent.

All that the noble Baroness asks us to do by her Bill is to follow Scotland in a sensible law. Although, therefore, I recognise that the noble Lord put forward this new clause in a genuine spirit of compromise, I was glad that the noble Baroness would not accept it.

To a number of noble Lords, particularly myself, this debate shows the difficulty which we are in. One recognises that there are anomalies, that the law is in disrepute and that therefore one needs to change it. But the more I hear some of the speeches the more I come to the conclusion that, if we can see anomalies in my noble friend's amendment, the position had better be left as it is.

The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked what right anybody has to interfere with the rights of shopkeepers and consumers. But do I want to see Ilford Broadway on a Sunday as it is on a Saturday, with all the surrounding streets chock-a-block with cars? Do not those people have an interest? They may not want to go to the shops and they may not be shopkeepers. Surely they have an interest in this. Similarly I made up my mind not to watch my local football team play on a Sunday, first because I have other things to do, and secondly because it affects all the surrounding streets. Residents surely have an interest, but nobody has mentioned their position.

It is argued that if we support the noble Baroness's Bill the changes will be very slight. Who can guarantee that? We are not passing a Bill just for 1982. We are passing it for 1987 or 1992. Gradually the shops will open and the character of Sunday trading will change. It has been mentioned that there may be inadequate protection for shopworkers. If we look at the reports of the number of workers at Foyle's who have been dismissed just for joining a trade union, I think we shall have to consider very carefully the position of any man or woman who says that for social or family reasons he or she does not wish to work on a Sunday. What will be their position? Surely people who do not wish to work on Sunday must be exempted.

One can argue against my noble friend's amendment and make jocular remarks about it, but either we find a way of amending my noble friend's amendment at another stage or noble Lords like me will be tempted to oppose the Bill because we believe that an extension of Sunday trading on the lines proposed by the noble Baroness will lead to a change of life. It will affect areas around the shops. We are not thinking just of the corner shop or of the village shop. We are thinking of a possible change in the large and even in the suburban shopping centres which will affect all the people living around those areas. They must be considered.

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that if the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, cannot be agreed to, we should oppose the Bill, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave. Surely there ought to be one day in the week when a man and a woman need not think of money-making. That is one reason why I support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, unless we are careful, Sunday will become just another money-making day. I know that there have to be gas and electricity, but surely one ought to try to keep to a minimum the supply of such necessary services. This is one day in the week which ought to be kept apart for worship and for healthy recreation.

May I express regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, do not appear to be intending to take part in the debate. I would not claim to he a very good substitute for either, let alone for both of the noble Baronesses. They spoke on Second Reading as housewives and as Christians who are concerned with attending church but as people who saw no necessary conflict between that and the removal of restrictions on shopping. I find myself in an identical position. I always find it more convenient to go to morning service at my church. After the 10.30 service, and lingering over some fellowship and coffee, I would not derive any advantage from the concession offered by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. It may give somebody else 50 per cent. of freedom, but it would deny me 100 per cent. of my freedom to go shopping with my family on a Sunday afternoon.

There are all kinds of circumstances in which that might be a sensible and harmonious activity.

I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who intervened to point out that as soon as you begin to draw lines you throw up anomalies. There are a whole variety of ways in which each of us might wish to specify particular exemptions and make a strong case for them, but it is a preposterous thing to keep on making distinctions between days of the week and hours of the day. If one looks at the amendment and the schedule, there are real problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, pointed out that bazaars on a Sunday are particularly well attended, and bazaars are usually held in the afternoon. We find that after one o'clock, under the schedule, non-profit making sales are allowed, which might include bazaars—but only sales of second-hand goods. However, there are bring-and-buy stalls and tombolas which are not confined to offering alcoholic refreshment but also such items as a bottle of tomato ketchup. I forget what the fine was in the earlier part of the amendment, but there would be a substantial fine for including tomato ketchup in the tombola at a church bazaar after one o'clock on a Sunday.

I pointed out at Second Reading that a great example had been set by the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, by opening their country homes throughout the week, and throughout the year in some cases, to provide a remarkable opportunity for family outings. Visits to Woburn and Hatfield House are a great delight for people living in north London, as I do. Associated with those visits are a variety of shops and stalls. It would be preposterous to have people going round with lists of what it might he permitted to sell after one o'clock, or what it was forbidden to sell after that time. I argued at Second Reading, as I do now, that it is better to leave it to Dukes and other tradespeople to decide when it will suit them to have customers and to ply their mutually beneficial trade.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointed out during her speech at Second Reading, from her great experience as a shopper, that one shop—I believe it was Whiteleys, a furniture shop—might have been saved if it had been allowed to open during times forbidden under the old law, but had gone out of business. Another noble Lord, who is not with us today, declared an interest in garden centres and pointed out that the law allowed the sale of plants but prohibited the sale of decorative pots in which to put them; or allowed the sale of trees but forbade the sale of a spade with which to plant the tree. This Bill exactly reproduces many of these dilemmas. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his readiness to make concessions, which obviously he would have been reluctant to do at an earlier stage. I hope he will take comfort from the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who said that, if one looks into the record of Scotland and indeed of France, where I have travelled a certain amount in visiting my family, one does not find that Sunday becomes just another Saturday, which is one of the noble Lord's refrains.

If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, will kindly give way, I should like to make it clear that Scotland is quite different from England and Wales so far as shopping is concerned Apart from two or three large towns, Scotland is a series of small towns and villages. The multiples are not established in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. The outcome of this Bill would be entirely different in England and Wales from what it would be in Scotland; it would be more like what happened in America.

I have lived some of my life in Scotland, in Edinburgh and Kirkcaldy, and I was not even aware that the Shops Act was different in that country from that of England, with which I am more familiar. Returning to Scotland, I gather that there has recently been a development, particularly in Glasgow and Edinburgh, where some of the large shops have opened on Sundays just before Christmas. Again, this provides an opportunity for many families to go shopping together. Not every shop opened; some shops opened but others stuck to their guns and did not open. The argument that it has to be "all or nothing" and a free-for-all, with the abandonment of any kind of restraint, is not one that is fulfilled in experience. I urge the noble Lord to consider whether the logic and coherence of a simple Bill to repeal these old and discredited statutes, which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is proposing, should be marred by an effort to bring back bit by bit some of the old anomalies and whether, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we should say that we can rid ourselves of anomalies until one o'clock but restore the full effect of them after that time.

The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, did not seem to me to speak in the warmest possible terms about the consumer activist lobby, which is what he thought it right to call it. Speaking on behalf of that lobby—and on this question, I believe that I can speak for the Consumers' Association and for the National Consumer Council—I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the sign of movement that there has been on his part. I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has already said in expressing her gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and those who are with him on this point. It does represent a considerable advance. In one way, one could say that the Co-operative Movement (and we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, speaks for the Co-operative Movement) is not now going to regard Sunday trading as wholly wrong, but only wrong in the afternoons. Although that might not seem, on the face of it, such a large advance, it seems to me that, if a change in the law of this kind was made, the people of this country would find shopping a good deal easier, and would feel more sure about where they stood.

Even so, and even after expressing this gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I should like to urge him to go further than he has been prepared to go in the past few weeks (though that is a good way) and urge him to go the whole way, as a means of removing the anomalies about which we have heard so much. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, gave us a list of the anomalies as they will again stand, even under the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. There has been some tidying up in the schedule to this Bill, but I fear—and I believe other noble Lords would agree with me—that in tidying up some of the anomalies, there is introduced a major new anomaly related to the queston of time. This major new anomaly will, I fear, act only to bring the law further into disrepute. It is something that I hope we would all be very much against.

Imagine the situation in a general store in a village, a town or part of any of our cities on a typical Sunday morning. It is getting near the critical and crucial hour of one o'clock. People may have their radios on. Big Ben strikes. The father says to his wife, "Good Heavens! What can we do now? Can we sell tinned food, now that it is after one o'clock? "No, we cannot. But can we sell fresh food? Yes, I think we can. Go and look at the schedule to the Bill. Bring it down and let us have a close look at it, to make sure what we can and cannot do". As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury said, if it was a shop that sold seeds, it would not be allowed to sell spades. Before one o'clock, perfectly all right; after one o'clock not.

All these anomalies that are present anyway in the law at the moment, and would be there even under the law as amended, would in some ways be made more grievous just because there is a new time limit on what can be done and what cannot be done. I think the people of this country would find it even more difficult to understand the good sense in a law which allowed anything to be sold before one o'clock and then only what would appear to most people to be an arbitrary list of certain things to be sold after one o'clock. All these exemptions and time limits and so on seem to me to show that in this kind of partial, compromise amendment to the law there can be no reliance upon principle, and if there cannot be reliance upon principle retailers will be confused, the police will be confused and certainly members of the consuming public will be confused.

The only sound principle we can act upon is that of freedom: freedom of shopkeepers and shop assistants to decide when they want to open, whether on Sundays or not, and freedom for consumers to buy where and when shopkeepers are willing to sell to them. Scotland, as we have heard, has already observed this principle, with no great harm but only good to the consuming public. It seems to me right that we should now rely on the principle that should have been there long ago, which now, if Lady Trumpington's Bill is supported and this amendment is rejected, will be the principle upon which the law will be based.

May I speak for a moment against this amendment. which I see as being very much a two-edged weapon. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, attempts to give with the one hand and rapidly takes away with the other in the terms of his schedule. r really cannot believe for one minute that the disaster which he foresees is likely to happen. I cannot see either that there is likely to be any conflict between an employed person and his employer. May I remind the Committee that I ran petrol stations for some years and I had to work on a Sunday because my staff liked to go to church or do other things. Other people came in in the afternoon. That kind of work, indeed the kind of work likely to be offered in the smaller shops, is going to appeal to those who want part-time work. The part-time worker comes from all walks of life—socio-economic groups I think they are now called. Sometimes it is for need of additional money and sometimes the need to get out and do something they think useful.

I find myself quite surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in his remarks on the earlier amendment, and also in the same vein the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, both seemed to reject change. I find that totally remarkable: on the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, involved so heavily as he has been in industry and commerce, the failure of which is because we will not make change. Then the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has been so involved with work and workpeople and opportunities, does not want the change in Sunday trading throughout all the range of goods, be it liquor or tea, be it porno magazines or bibles, be it petrol or bicycles; that that opportunity should not be given to enterprising shopkeepers. If the shopkeeper cannot employ the people he will not open; if the customers do not come he closes his business; he is not going to just stay open unless he sells something.

So far as the area is concerned and the reduction in the standard of life, what a lot of nonsense that is! We live in a real world, where all sorts of things should and do happen. If the streets surrounding these residents become totally congested on a Sunday there are adequate resources open to the local authority to stop that. The anomalies that any schedule will produce will always exist; you have really got to get rid of it. You either want enterprise, the job opportunity that such enterprise brings, or you go back to the totally unsatisfactory state which has existed for the 20 years we have been talking about it, and before that. Let me remind your Lordships that most prosecutions come about as a result of an informer; trading standards officers do not want to work all the days and so there has to be rostering to cover the matter. You would get rid of all that aggravation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has sweetly proposed a return to the old days, in contradiction to the ideals that my noble friend Lady Trumpington sets down in offering this Bill.

I really fail to see why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should think that because I want one quiet day a week I am against change. Of course I am in favour of all sorts of change. I have been involved in one industry most of my life which has possibly seen more change than most others. But I want industrial change so that we can improve the quality of life. I do not think this sort of change is going to improve the quality of life. I think we should consider very carefully before we follow the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the right honourable gentleman the Member for Hillhead any further down this permissive road.

I am bound to say I was almost tempted to engage in debate with my noble friend Lord Harris, whom I am pleased to see back, about the merits of stimulating eight o'clock communion as against the rather lazy 10.30 eucharist that he apparently favours. I will not pursue that. I do not understand why, if he wants to go to church on Sunday morning, he should still say it has got to be noisy in the afternoon as well.

I have been worried by the way this debate has gone, because I think we are tempted to get too clever about compromises. It is so easy to be funny about selling ketchup at five minutes past one as against 12.55. I was amazed when noble Lords started talking so cleverly and wittily about the implications of a six o'clock or eight o'clock closure. A lot of the best things in life have arisen from the fact that we have said: "So far and no further; we can go to a certain time but we do not want to go any further."

I was going to rise earlier because I wanted to pay tribute to the wonderfully reasoned speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. For half of her speech I thought she was going to give way and I was feeling very warmly disposed towards her. Then she advanced some most extraordinary reasons for being against the amendment. I look at the noble Baroness, whom I have always regarded as being a pillar of conservatism, and I wonder how far she is now prepared to go. She herself said she could go even further. I do not know quite in what direction. She said not for her, or not for the Government, not for any law should shopkeepers be restricted; it was not for the Government, it was not for the law makers to say how we should behave. I wonder if she really means that. We might as well say to boxers in the ring that it is not for the referee to say how they should knock each other out. Surely we must have some type of rules if we are to have anything approaching a civilised life?

If the noble Baroness gets the Bill through, is she going to abolish all licensing laws'? Apparently she will have the support of the Social Democratic Party, because they hate to think that anything should be wrong at 10 minutes past 10 when it was legal at 10 minutes to 10. Is the noble Baroness going to embark upon a crusade in that connection? What about safety legislation? When we get going down this slope, why should we have all these rules and regulations even if they do involve safety? I know that there is a difference. But I am telling the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that once we get going down this slope it will be very difficult to hold up.

I think that the noble Lord is perhaps a little unfair in looking at me, because I was smiling at the way in which he had taken out of context what my noble friend had said.

If I have done so and if I have misrepresented what the noble Baroness said, then I am sorry. But it seemed to me that the noble Baroness was making a very powerful case in the second half of her speech for a complete free-for-all in our economy and our society. I am venturing to say that, if we pursue that course, then we shall have cause to regret it. My noble friend Lord Jacques has come forward with a compromise. Anybody who brings forward a compromise can he criticised for inconsistency—he can have one matter played off against him by another. I know that there is a difficulty for a "compromiser". However, I think that it is a sincere compromise that he is putting forward and, although I have hitherto voiced the opinion of being against any movement along the lines suggested in these amendments, I would support the amendment and I hope that the Committee will support it. If we do not support it, I hope that will be the final reason for not accepting the Bill at all.

A great deal has been said about the matter of making compromises. I think that we must all realise that some compromises are absolutely inescapable. If one lives alone or without any domestic staff, for instance, one must take into consideration the fact that that one has to do one's ordinary cooking and cleaning and so on, on Sundays. In the far distant days when I was a professional organist, one's chief work came on a Sunday. None the less, I think that one can accept those compromises and yet keep the feeling of Sunday being different from other days, and preserve the feeling of the sanctity, as it were, of the Sabbath in spite of making these, on the surface, compromises.

I am hoping that this might be the time to close this debate. I have a whole sheaf of notes which would allow me to reply to the debate, but quite frankly I think that your Lordships have all made up your minds as to whether you are going to vote for or against. I suggest that we take the vote and I therefore invite the Committee to divide.

I have to point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 6.

moved Amendment No. 5:

I speak briefly, to say that I think the Committee will welcome this change of view from "one month" at present in the Bill. I hope that it also affords more time for consultation with all those who may be affected by the subsequent changes.

We on these Benches also welcome this amendment. One month was undoubtedly too short for consultation. This is a great improvement.

moved Amendment No. 7:

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 89B:

The Government have no objection in principle to further provision to control roadside sales. However, there is a need to amend the drafting of this clause so as to avoid speaking in terms of an "obstruction of the passage of traffic over, the road", when it appears that an obstruction on the highway, irrespective of its effect on passage, is a nuisance. Also, it appears to be necessary for other changes to be made to fit the clause into the context of this Bill. I should therefore like to tell my noble friend that we would want to consider the clause in more detail with a view to a Government amendment being put down at Report.

While not disagreeing with the noble Viscount—and I have not been approached by any organisation—I am a little concerned about the long distance lorry driver. Going along trunk roads in the country one finds that many long distance lorry drivers use the lay-by and take their hot bacon sandwich and mug of tea and their rest as part of the statutory rest time which the lorry driver has to take. I am concerned that perhaps that might be abolished by this clause.

We are all trying to get the long distance lorry drivers out of the towns, and this would limit the number of places where they would be able to pull up and take refreshment on their long journeys, bearing in mind the statutory duty on them to have a rest. I rise purely on those grounds to see that the facilities they have are safeguarded, bearing in mind that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I am sure, will want to preserve many of our old towns from the danger inherent in the intrusion of long distance lorry drivers. If this clause went through it might mean that they would have to come into the towns and there park.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She is right to raise the problem of the long distance lorry driver. I think there is almost no Member of this House who has not occasionally used a roadside lay-by and bought a sausage, or something, in the course of passing by. There is no intention to prohibit this. Clearly we ought to have some means of control whereby the dangerous ones can be moved on. I shall not, but I could weary your Lordships with terrifying photographs of dangerous places where these things happen and where no control exists. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the suggestion that this situation could be looked at and dealt with by a Government amendment, which would undoubtedly be better than anything I could produce. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment No. 90:

moved Amendment No. 91:

Amendment No. 92:

moved Amendment No. 93:

moved Amendment No. 94:

moved Amendment No. 94ZA:

I, too, propose to speak to the group of five amendments. We feel that in practice it is unnecessary to require a local authority to consult statutory undertakers. Our concern is that consultation could prove inflexible and onerous, not to say time consuming. For example, in a great many cases a local authority will be aware, without needing to consult, that the services of statutory undertakers are likely to be affected, and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, himself very fairly said, it is reasonable to suppose that in such circumstances the authority will properly exericse its discretion under paragraph (h) of Clause 29B(1) and serve a notice containing the appropriate condition. Therefore it would perhaps be a rather costly waste of the time of both the local authority and the statutory undertaker to require consultation, and in some circumstances it could unnecessarily delay the start of demolition works. Similarly, there might be cases where it was patently obvious that no such services could be affected and there it would be pointless to require consultation.

However, in cases where the local authority is in doubt about whether gas or electricity services might be affected, there is nothing to stop the authority seeking the advice of the relevant undertakers. Alternatively, the authority has the power simply to go ahead and impose a requirement for the demolisher to make arrangements with the statutory undertakers in any event.

I should have thought that it is more satisfactory to leave the matter to the discretion of local authorities and to rely on them to exercise their powers responsibly, rather than to impose an inflexible and, as I say, a time-consuming requirement, which could place unnecessary burdens on all the parties concerned.

With regard to Amendment No. 94ZB, my observations are very similar, since surely it is reasonable to expect that an undertaker, on making arrangements, could ensure that a demolisher left electricity lines and apparatus, for example, electrically dead as part of any other arrangements in relation to the disconnection of the supply.

Having said that, I should add that we have thought carefully about the point that the noble Lord raises. For the reasons that I have just given, we think that what he proposes is not entirely necessary. Nevertheless, he has raised one or two points which ought to be thought about a little further, and we are considering possibly tabling on Report an amendment which would require demolishers in all cases to inform statutory undertakers of a proposed demolition. I think that that would go a long way towards meeting what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is seeking. In regard to those amendments and the others to which he has referred, I would add that we are prepared to consider the matter with a view to putting down a suitable Government amendment on Report. Perhaps in the light of that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I never like to look a gift horse in the mouth, and certainly I should be ready to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I hope that I am not precluded from making one or two observations on the noble Lord's arguments. He said, if there were a rigid system whereby on every occasion when a demolition is contemplated, the local authority must consult the undertakers as to whether there are any electric, gas, or water installations involved, that would impose a heavy burden upon the authority. I am afraid that I cannot at all understand that view. The amendment does not specify the way in which the consultations must take place. If it is a mandatory requirement that in every case where a demolition notice is contemplated, automatically the local authority must communicate with the statutory undertakers, the authority could do that perfectly well by lifting up the telephone if it chose.

The great advantage of making consultation mandatory is that it would avoid the exceptional case—and I realise it to be exceptional—where for some reason or another (perhaps because somebody has not thought of it) an inquiry is not made and then perhaps a fatal accident ensues. I should have thought that if one weighed one argument against the other there is an overwhelming case for making consultation mandatory and that in practice it would not impose any serious obligation on the local authority. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 94ZF:

May I ask whether the Minister really was speaking to Amendment No. 94ZF?

I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 94ZF and 95ZA.

Amendment No. 94ZF refers to,

"Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board—"

It is Amendment No. 94ZF; the noble Baroness is quite right.

I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. Amendment No. 94ZF is a new amendment, which is contained in the third Marshalled List, but was not in the earlier Marshalled Lists, as was the case with three other amendments, Nos. 94A, 95B and 95C. They were presented to us only this morning, and I should like to make a slight protest, since it is rather difficult to cope with new amendments within the short space of time between collecting the Marshalled List rather late this morning and talking about the amendments this afternoon. Since this is the third Committee day on the Bill it seems to me rather hard to include these amendments at this late stage. It is very difficult for us to master them and to find out what they are all about.

I should like to ask one or two questions. Amendment No. 94ZF states that "building' includes structure". Several amendments relate to British Railways' land and statutory undertakers' land. Amendment No. 95A proposes a new clause, headed:

"Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers",

which states:

"This Section applies to operational land—".

Then in subsection (7) of the new clause in Amendment No. 95A there is the most extraordinary definition of "operational land". The first part of it is comprehensible to me, but then it goes on to say:

"not being land which, in rsepect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of carrying on such undertakings".

I do not know whether perhaps the Government can try to get the language a little clearer. They were in a hurry, too, I suppose; but it seems to me that the ordinary person having to cope with this provision will have a great deal of difficulty.

I should also like to draw attention to subsection (2C) of Amendment No. 94ZF, which I really do not understand, and I should be very glad to have an explanation from the Minister. It appears that very wide powers are being offered to the local authorities. I realise they can choose them, that they do not have to take them on; but why cannot British Railways and the statutory undertakers do their own work? I should also like to ask, who bears the costs? The Minister has not spoken already to Amendment No. 95C, so perhaps I had better keep my questions about that until later.

I am glad the noble Baroness keeps those questions until a little later. Might I say that I entirely accept her point about the shortage of time in which to deal with amendments. I would also hope that she would accept from me that there have been times when I have sat on this Bench and been given manuscript amendments which were handed in five minutes previously and upon which one has been expected to make observations and comments. I am sure she will have the same sympathy with me as I have with her on this point.

If I could make one comment on that, it is one thing for the Government with civil servants behind them and another for us without them.

I sometimes wonder about that. I gave an illustration recently, did I not?, in your Lordships' House of the kind of briefing one can get from time to time. Some may consider it helpful; some may not. Perhaps no more for the moment— and "Yes, Minister", indeed.

Quite clearly, on the drafting of these definitions I shall have to come back to the noble Baroness. I am sorry I cannot give a detailed breakdown of them at the moment. As she fairly says, she has difficulty in coping with these interpretations. I could easily give my own interpretations of these things as they seem to me, but I think it would be right and proper if I were to give them to her in a written form. Then it can be brought back again should anyone have concern about any particular aspects of it. Perhaps the noble Baroness might agree that, with that, we might move on. I take her point entirely, and will try to get that for her.

moved Amendment No. 94A:

moved Amendments Nos. 94B, 94C and 94D:

moved Amendment No. 94E:

moved Amendment No. 95:

It was because the local authorities could not recover their expenses in the kind of cases to which the noble Baroness referred that they were given power to take speedy action in Housing Act cases with no right of appeal for the owner. The noble Baroness will no doubt be pleased to hear me say that we are proposing that there be a Government amendment to give owners a right of appeal against an authority's notice of proposed works or against a demand for costs where no notice is given. This will remove any objections on those grounds to local authorities being able to recover their costs. Consequently the Government are content that subsection (6) be omitted from the Bill, and we accept the amendment.

I am overwhelmed. I appreciate the observations which the noble Lord made. In the Second Reading debate he was not so helpful. Perhaps in his re-reading of the debate I and my noble friends convinced him. I thank the noble Lord.

moved Amendment No. 95ZA:

moved Amendment No. 95ZB:

The Government cannot accept this amendment. It is thought that the requirement for local authorities to copy to the gas and electricity undertakers (but not, I notice, to the undertakers concerned with the supply of water) any notice they give under the clause would impose an unnecessary burden on local government at the present time. The local authority can be expected to consult on the matter if that was thought to be necessary. We do not think there is a need for a provision to save undertakers' rights to enter buildings in exercise of their statutory powers. The view taken is that nothing which a local authority does under the clause can prejudice the exercise of statutory powers conferred on statutory undertakers to enter buildings for the purpose of carrying out work to their apparatus.

Also, the proposed requirement on undertakers to ensure that buildings are not left less secure by reason of the exercise by the undertakers of their powers of entry would seem to extend beyond the scope of this Bill. Having said that, I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will take the point that the powers in the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 seem to deal with the matter. That may be something he would want to look at. We cannot accept the amendment.

I will look at that. I am completely ignorant of the terms of the Act which the noble Lord quoted. I am glad that I am not moving a third amendment because the noble Lord becomes less forthcoming the longer we go on. I am grateful for the answer. On this occasion, I shall not do anything other than to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Some authorities seem to be worried that when a notice is served on somebody asking them to carry out works and they do not do it, there is no penalty that can be imposed in the Bill for that. Will the noble Lord comment on that so that we may think whether we might want to put down an amendment on Report?

The question of a penalty or otherwise is one thing. The Government feel that the reason why (apart from the earlier reasons) we did not want to accept the noble Lord's amendment was because there were the powers in the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 which we think cover the point. There should be no problem. One would want to look into that more carefully. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Baroness will do so.

If the person on whom the notice is served could do the work but simply refuses to do so, should there not be a sanction against that?

I am not aware of any specific requirement in that way. One can have a look at it. That I shall gladly do.

moved Amendment No. 95A: