LORD AVEBUEYMy Lords, I rise to ask whether His Majesty's Government remain of the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that a further inquiry should take place on the conditions under which Sunday trading is now carried on; and, if so, what steps they propose to take. At the commencement of this session your Lordships in a full House, and after considerable discussion, gave a Second Reading, without a division, to a Bill which proposed to amend the law relating to Sunday trading. The Committee to which it was referred were unanimously in favour of the Bill, but when it came back to your Lordships' House, though no notice of any opposition was given, nor a single Amendment put on the Paper, it was thrown out in a small House by a majority of twenty-one. In those circumstances the Committee have felt that that vote did not express the deliberate judgment of the House. They have satisfied themselves that the Bill was supported by an overwhelming majority of shopkeepers in the country; in fact, it was their Bill. It was also supported by a large number of the principal local authorities throughout the country, and of the trades councils. I was glad to notice that my noble friend the Leader of the House, though he objected to some of the details of the Bill, which we thought were matters that could have been satisfactorily dealt with 170 in Committee, did not express himself as hostile to legislation, or to the very natural desire of the shopkeepers of this country to have Sunday as a day of rest. The Committee thought they had inquired fully into the question. As to the facts there is, I believe, no question—no other subject of inquiry suggested itself or inquiry suggested itself to them. But the noble Marquess said he would be glad of some further information on the subject. In those circumstances I beg to put to my noble friend the Question standing in my name.
§ THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)My Lords, I think the best Answer I can give to my noble friend is to remind him of the fact that there is on the Journals of the House a record which shows that when the Sunday Closing of Shops Bill came up for Second Reading an Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Belper, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to this effect—
That the House is not prepared to legislate upon this subject without further information as to the facts of the case, and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conditions upon whien Sunday trading is now permitted by law.That Motion represented our views. We did not press it upon the House because we had reason to believe that many of your Lordships preferred a different course It still, however, represents our view, and at a proper time we shall be ready to agree to a Motion for an inquiry into the present condition of the law. But it is quite impossible for me in the last days of the session to tell my noble friend that we have any intention of ourselves moving in the matter.
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDI should like to ask the noble Marquess what is the exact interpretation we are to put on the very kindly and encouraging words which he has just uttered with regard to this measure, in which we take very great interest. The noble Marquess quoted a Resolution which had been carried in your Lordships' House at, the beginning of this session.
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDWell, the Committee was appointed in consequence of that Resolution, was it not?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNENo. My noble friend does not grasp the distinction between what we proposed and what was actually done. We proposed that there should be no legislation, hut that there should be a Committee of inquiry. In deference, however, to what we believed to be the views of the House we agreed to read the Bill a second time and to refer it to a select Committee.
§ THE DUKE of NORTHUMBERLANDAs I understand it, His Majesty's Government are not satisfied with the inquiry which has taken place, and think that some further inquiry should be instituted. It that is the case, I am quite sure no one would object to the course proposed. We recognise that the question is a very difficult one, and that a thorough inquiry should be made. I am only sorry that the Committee was allowed to sit and to occupy its time with an inquiry which apparently could not in its nature be satisfactory. I earnestly hope that no time will be lost in inquiring into the subject and arriving at a conclusion upon it, because every day the question becomes more serious and difficult.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, I think a small Commission would be more to the purpose than a Parliamentary Committee. It would have to be a locomotive Commission and go and see this evidence for itself. What I urged on the members of the Committee was that they should go and see this Sunday trading, and I defy anybody who has witnessed it to support with a light heart a Bill which would put a stop to it. Since the Sunday Closing Bill was thrown out I have received innumerable letters thanking me for the course I took in reference to the Bill. The tone of them is that poor people living in one room, which is their bedroom, their 172 workroom, their everything, find it most inconvenient and unhealthy to have to keep their provisions in that room, and they therefore strongly urge that they should be allowed to continue to purchase these goods on Sunday mornings. Another argument was that the Bill would take away the livelihood of thousands of small tradespeople. One man wrote to me saying that his actual takings in a week were 26s of which he took 14s. on a Sunday. That is the sort of small trader who would be injured by my noble friend, who has shopmen and shopgirls on the brain. But I look beyond them. They can take care of themselves. What we have to do is to guard against committing a great injustice to the mass of the population, and not only causing them great inconvenience but ruining small traders. As I have said, I defy anyone who goes to see Sunday trading carried on, to pass a Bill such as that introduced by the noble Lord, and I would suggest that next Sunday the Cabinet should meet in Petticoat Lane between the hours of 10 and 12.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, as one who has taken a keen interest in this subject, I should like to express my satisfaction at learning that it is not the view of His Majesty's Government that this matter is finally closed. Perhaps it is hardly reasonable to expect at this period of the session that the noble Marquess should go into detail as to the manner in which the question should be reopened. But at least we have his assurance that it can and. will be reopened. I desire to endorse what has been said by the Select Committee and by Lord Avebury and the noble Duke who have spoken this afternoon, that there is an urgent need that something should be done in regard to this matter. The noble Earl who has just spoken has suggested an interesting excursion on a particular day to a region in which these markets exist. Some of us are not only able to speak from occasional visits but have lived for years in those parts of London where the whole thing is going on around us; and we are thus familiar with many of the things that surprise the noble Earl. But 173 I admit that it is a perfectly legitimate matter for further inquiry I have always felt that the difficulty of these inquiries arises not in getting evidence about the shopkeepers but in getting evidence as to the needs of the customers. I think further inquiry on that subject is still desirable, and would contribute very largely to the possibility of our being able to satisfactorily legislate on the subject.
§ THE EARL OF ABERDEENMy Lords, I only rise to associate myself with what was said by the noble Duke as to the urgency of the question and the desirability of no time being lost in inquiring into the subject and arriving at a conclusion upon it. I am glad that the noble Marquess does not think that this is a matter which can be passed over as not requiring attention, and that in his opinion it is a question deserving a further inquiry.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'olock, to Thursday next, a quarter - past Four o'clock.