Lords Sitting of 9 July 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD SANDERSON.
Henry Sanderson Furniss, Esq., having been created Baron Sanderson of Hunmanby, in the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask two questions of His Majesty's Government. In the first place I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House whether he can indicate any arrangement as to the business of the House. I would also like to take this opportunity of asking the Under-Secretary of State for India. (Earl Russell) how soon he thinks we may be able to have in our hands copies of the Viceroy's statement made in India this morning.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, in reply to the question the noble Marquess has asked me, though the Housing (No. 2) Bill has not yet been formally read a first time in this House, it will be so read shortly. It is generally referred to as a Bill dealing with slums and slum clearance. I propose that we should take the Second Reading of that Bill on Tuesday. That will give nearly a full week's interval. We are getting on to a late time of the Session and are anxious to get through our business by the end of July. The Bill has been printed and discussed for some time, and I think if we take it on Tuesday that will give ample time. There is one other matter to which the noble Marquess did, not refer that I would like to say a word about, and that is the Coal Mines Bill when it comes back to us from another place. I thought at first that we might take that on Monday, but I find that is not convenient. If it would be convenient, we might put that down also for Tuesday. Both are important matters
330
which may, of course, lead to subsequent discussion and we ought to get on with them.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, with regard to the question the noble Marquess put to me, the India Office have had copies of the address by the Viceroy to the Indian Legislature printed, and your Lordships will find them available in the Library of this House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. With regard to business, as the noble and learned Lord is aware, it was only when he spoke just now that I heard for the first time he proposed to take the two very important matters to which he referred on the same day. I would venture to say to him very respectfully that so far as the Housing Bill is concerned, I do not think it would be at all an unreasonable arrangement that the Second Reading of that should be taken on Tuesday, but I rather deprecate that after perhaps a long and difficult discussion upon the Housing Bill we should proceed to discuss what may perhaps be a rather difficult matter in reference to the Coal Mines Bill. I do not know in what form it will return to us, and if the noble and learned Lord will allow me perhaps he would let me mention the matter a little later in the evening or to-morrow, and we could discuss whether we would be prepared to take the Coal Mines Bill so early as next Tuesday.
LORD PARMOOR: We cannot, of course, at the present moment put anything down about the Coal Mines Bill, as it is not in this House, but it is convenient that the House should have warning as early as possible of what the course of business is likely to be. I think it would be better to let that matter stand over till to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As regards the Coal Mines Bill?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.

HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable education authorities in Scotland to incur expenditure in supplying milk to children attending schools within their area; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to relieve the principal librarian of the British Museum of the care of the Natural History Departments of the Museum and from liability to enter into a bond for the due discharge of the duties of his office: and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª—(Lord Hanworth.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª; and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH MOLTON RURAL) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (UXBRIDGE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GREAT TORRINGTON MINEHEAD AND TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BOARD) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (DONCASTER ST. IVES (CORNWALL) AND SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHTON) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ACCRINGTON BOGNOR REGIS AND NEWTON ABBOT) BILL.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name be agreed to.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a Second time after Tuesday, the 24th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2ª.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2ª accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORECAMBE AND HEYSHAM) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EAST DEAN AND UNITED DISTRICTS JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CARDIFF, STOKE-ON-TRENT AND WORTHING) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HENDON RURAL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (KIDDERMINSTER AND LLANELLY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GOOLE AND OLDHAM) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ESSEX) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (TORQUAY AND WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BOGNOR REGIS AND CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER AND SEVENOAKS WATER) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (DEVON, CREDITON EXHIBITION FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

RATING OF PLAYING FIELDS.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether their attention has been drawn to the serious increases which have recently taken place in the assessment of playing fields and recreation grounds for the use of villagers or attached to working men's clubs, settlements, churches and institutes;

2. Whether it is realised that the effect of the increased assessments will probably involve the giving up of many private playing fields because the present occupiers cannot pay the increased rates; and

3. Whether, in view of the importance of securing recreational facilities for developing the health and healthy enjoyment of the wage-earning classes in particular, it is intended to take any measures to relieve from the payment of rates and taxes bona fide non-profit making playing fields for those who otherwise are unable to afford them;

And to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper I think I can probably take it that your Lordships will agree that, if ever there was a question which should be treated on its merits, it is one which deals with the provision and the rating of recreation grounds and playing fields. I am sorry, however, that the action of the Minister of Health in another place gives one the impression that he has not been willing to treat the matter in that manner. Consequently to-day I feel myself forced to treat it not altogether as non-political. Your Lordships will recollect that the National Playing Fields Association introduced a Bill into the other House which was backed by members of all three political Parties. It was a Bill for the derating of the amateur private playing fields in the country which have been severely hit by the conditions that obtain at the present time. Clubs like Hurlingham are outside the scope

335
of the Bill and, though the promoters of the Bill were advised that that was secured by the terms of the Bill, they made it perfectly clear in another place that they would be willing to accept any Amendment so that no advantage should accrue to such clubs or to people who were well able to pay rates. The Minister, however, came down to the Committee and informed them that the only effect of the Bill would be to put money into the pockets of the landlords, and that no benefit would enure to the users of the grounds.
I am quite sure that there are many noble Lords in this House to-day, and many who are not present, who afford facilities for recreation to clubs, boy scouts, girl guides and other such organisations, and I would ask, in regard to land the user of which is often allowed for these purposes, if it is seriously meant that noble Lords or other landowners should send for their agents and tell them that, as the result. of the failure to derate playing fields, as might have been done if that Bill had been passed, the rent, which in most cases is a mere peppercorn rent, must be increased. Of course the whole idea is preposterous. There is the further case of land that is given gratis for the purpose of playing fields. We find at the present time that land which is being used for that purpose is being frequently assessed at a very high figure.
I should like to take a typical case of which I have personal knowledge in the County of Essex, where for sonic fifty years past the free use has been given to the people of a village club of part of a large field as a cricket pitch. Now the assessment committee have suddenly come down and assessed that field, which is agricultural land but which is used for playing field purposes, at £35. Naturally the owner has to consider whether he can afford to continue the permission to use this land as it has been used for so long, though it has contributed to the amenities, the pleasures and the healthy recreation of his neighbours. The effect of circumstances such as these applies not merely to those who own a great deal of land but, in cases that have been brought to my knowledge, to men who own merely a few
336
acres but who consider it their duty, if they can afford it, to allow the user of their land for a playing field.
When these assessments are made, I would point out that, the rate being imposed, it is clear that the occupiers in such a case cannot pay it, and therefore it falls upon the landlord himself. I should like to ask why landowners should be penalised for doing what they conceive to be their public duty. It seems to me a monstrous thing that this should be the effect of the effort to reassess land on an equitable basis at the present time. What is the present position in regard to these playing fields up and down the country? Linder the re-assessments that are taking place, in many cases, as I have said, land is being assessed that has not been assessed before, and land that is already subject to rates has been given an enormously increased assessment. The National Playing Fields Association in London has received hundreds of letters from every part of the country asking for advice and help in the position that confronts these clubs.
There is another aspect of this subject to which I should like to draw your Lordships attention. I refer to the harassing action that is being taken with regard to land which, strictly speaking, is not assessable to rates at all. I have been told of several cases where trustees of recreation grounds that have been given as War memorials have been assessed to rates during the last twelve or eighteen months. In other cases demands have been made on trustees controlling grounds that have been either given or acquired with great effort on the part of villagers, workpeople and others by subscription or by getting up fêtes or whist drives such as your Lordships are all familiar with. It is idle to say that in these cases their remedy is to appeal. How can these clubs in most instances afford to take the legal advice and technical evidence which it would be necessary to bring up to the Court of Quarter Sessions? The only effect of what is happening is that, after a given time, it will be impossible for such people to carry on.
But it is the private sports grounds that are hardest hit. As your Lordships are well aware, these are maintained in many cases by the sustained efforts of the members of these clubs. They have

337
no margin to spare in their resources for coping with the demands that are now being made upon them. These assessments are being put up in the most remarkable manner, and I should like, with your Lordships' leave, to quote a few instances from the many hundreds that are available for those who are interested in the subject. I know of two cases in Yorkshire, one where the previous assessment was £4 10s. and where it is now £16, and another where the assessment was £29 and is now £63. In Sussex a previous assessment of £18 has been increased to £90. In Warwickshire ground assessed at £5 3s. 6d. previously is now assessed at £45. In Essex one ground that was not previously assessed at all is now assessed at £15. From Durham comes a similar instance of ground not previously assessed which is assessed now at £25. Of many cases at Chesterfield I will mention just one, Which I take at random from figures supplied to me. One ground, assessed previously at £16 5s., is now assessed at £28.
It is when you conic to Greater London and centres of that sort that the cases are most glaring. There is one case of ground previously assessed at £197 and now assessed at £600. There are two places at Ealing one of which was assessed previously at £28 and is now assessed at £200, and another formerly assessed at £60 and now at £440. The most glaring ease of all is at Greenford, where ground assessed at £37 was in the first instance put up to £745 and, only upon appeal, was reduced to £345. These are merely instances taken from the examples that have been put before me. They are a very few of the many hundreds of cases in which the effect of the re-assessment under present conditions is of a crippling nature. The effect really is that money is being raised in this way at the expense of the provisions for health and recreation that in many cases have been provided with the greatest possible difficulty, either by subscription or through the efforts of those who feel the need of the provision of healthy outdoor exercise.
I should like to take a typical case to show how this works out. Take the example of a cricket club having about seventy members and paying a rent of between £30 and £40 a year. The club
338
can be carried on with a subscription of a guinea, which is within the reach of certain clerks and other low-salaried workers. If the rateable value is increased, as it is being increased, the rates alone will probably come to £75 a year. What is the club to do? It must either double the subscription of its members, which they cannot afford, or else after a given period the club must cease to exist. It is true enough, I think, to say that, judging from figures that I have mentioned, assessments have not only been doubled but in several instances have been quadrupled or even multiplied by ten; and if the former assessments were unduly low, the effect of the increase on clubs, unless some relief is given, will be that they will have to give up their tenancies of the ground and bring the clubs to an end.
Among the other letters that I have received with regard to this matter is one from the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers, who are in a position to know what is happening in every part of the country. In the course of that letter the general secretary writes as follows:—
"To my own personal knowledge a very considerable number of amateur clubs in London and the provinces (and by no means are these rich men's clubs but rather clubs where the membership is almost wholly composed of working people) are having the very greatest difficulty in continuing in existence, because of the heavy reassessments upon their land. Indeed it seems as if the rating authorities consider it quite proper to rate all such land as if it were, or ought to be, developed for building,"
I think that is evidence of what is going on which it is not out of place to quote to your Lordships' House this afternoon. After all, a very considerable number of people are affected by this question, for it is estimated that no fewer than 5,000,000 young men and women make use of these playing fields. The problem of our industrial centres with regard to the provision of open spaces and recreation grounds is one of very great difficulty and complexity, and we realise that we are suffering in many centres owing to the want of foresight of previous generations. Surely we ought at the present time to cater so far as we can for the future, to take long views on this subject, and whether

339
it be in the direction of town planning or in the direction of encouraging the private playing fields, with which I am particularly concerned this afternoon, I venture to think it is sound policy to encourage in every way the retention of open spaces, with regard to the development that is taking place in building.
These assessments are undoing a great deal of the work that has been done by the National Playing Fields Association. It is ludicrous of the Minister to suggest or to imply that that body is out to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, or is a tool, as one might almost gather from what he said, in the hands of the landlords of this country. Noble Lords interested in this matter know too much of the National Playing Fields Association to pay any attention to a suggestion of that sort. I am sure that noble Lords are aware also of the auspices under which the National Playing Fields Association was founded in 1927; and I think everybody is prepared to admit the splendid services that that institution has done to the State—services to every class of the community, but especially to those least able to help themselves in the direction of the provision of playing fields. The Carnegie Trustees, who devoted a very large sum indeed to supporting the movement of the National Association, and the Association itself have granted between them a sum of £110,000 towards the provision of playing fields in different parts of the country but that is no gauge of the value of the work that they have done, nor is the fact that some 550 fresh playing fields have been provided. It is the educative effect of this association and the force of public example which have led in many parts of the country to an awakening on this subject.
Some urge that greater use should be made for games of the public parks. I have no doubt that to a certain extent, within a reasonable limit, something can be done in this regard. We know that the Office of Works is keen to help, but it is not every town which has parks like those which are under the ægis of Mr. Lansbury. It really almost looks, after what happened the other day, that what Mr. Lansbury gives with one hand Mr. Greenwood is trying to takeaway with the other. In other places, with smaller parks, there is very little room available
340
for games. After all, the responsibility of municipalities and local authorities is to the population as a whole, and not merely to those who play games. They naturally have not to interfere with the amenities of those places that are available for the older people who do not play games, and surely the more the private playing fields are encouraged the less onus will come on those authorities to provide opportunities for playing games, which are really so necessary at the present time. In the case of the London County Council, they are only in a position to Accede, in the public open spaces, to something like one-third of the applications made to them for cricket and football pitches. Surely it is a mistake, to say the least of it, to discourage people in regard to these private playing fields in the way that Mr. Greenwood is doing, by the action he has taken.
I hope I have said enough to show the serious position in which the whole matter stands under present conditions. I am not speaking here as a representative of the National Playing Fields Association, but merely as a member of this House who has taken for a long time very considerable interest in the efforts which are being made to provide playing fields up and down the country. Personally I have no feeling against cinematographs, but I think it would be better to encourage the provision of playing fields, and facilities to help outdoor enjoyment, rather than to do anything to detract from what is or should be available at the present time for those who look for recreation in such centres as those. I think I may say, without much fear of contradiction, that the Attitude of the Minister of Health has filled with dismay the members of thousands of clubs throughout the country—football, tennis and other clubs—who feel that the serious grievance under which they are suffering at the present time has been dismissed in a very cavalier fashion. I have endeavoured to deal with three kinds of playing fields: land placed at disposal of villages without payment; land in the hands of trustees only held and dedicated for recreation purposes; And land occupied by bona fide amateur sports clubs—all providing facilities the value of which to the community is, I venture to say, incalculable. Surely these should be

341
relieved of the burden of rates, which practical experience is showing they are quite unable Lo cope or deal with.
I hope that the noble Lord who will reply will be able to give us some assurance that this matter will not continue to be treated by the Socialist Government in the manner in which it has been treated hitherto, and I can only hope, speaking on behalf of those whose attention has been very directly turned to this matter, that some steps will be taken to relieve from this overwhelming burden, as it is proving, those playing fields which are already established, with a view of encouraging an enormous extension of them in the immediate future.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, before the Minister replies I would like to support very strongly the powerful appeal made by my noble friend below me. No one in this House or out of it would under-estimate the enormous importance of providing adequate playing fields for the use of the poorer classes of both sexes in this country. This is a national question; it is not a question of ally class. It is a matter of the widest opportunities of recreation for the benefit of the people of the country. I am sorry to say that I have observed an increased tendency on the part of young men, instead of playing cricket and football themselves, to go in thousands and thousands, perhaps long distances, to watch the play of the gladiators, the great professors, of the game. For my own part I think it is far better for them to play themselves, and for that purpose it is necessary to provide them with adequate playing fields.
I do not suppose that anyone in this House or elsewhere would suggest that there are enough playing fields, either in the towns or in the country, and undoubtedly one cause of the scarcity of these playing fields is the fact that they are highly rated and have to pay rates and taxes upon the areas devoted to this purpose. Why should they pay rates and taxes? Are they not really very much of the nature of a charity? We know that charities do not pay taxes: it appears reasonable to extend the immunity which is granted to charities to institutions of this character. Some might ask whether it is proposed to throw a new burden upon the ratepayers. It
342
is true the rates in some cases are far too great. But let me remind your Lordships of the millions and millions of pounds that are spent every year now in widening old roads and making new ones, to be used as racing tracks, to the great discomfort and, in many cases, to the physical injury, and perhaps death, of the inhabitants. If there is arty difficulty in finding money for playing fields, let the Government devote some of the useless millions spent upon the roads to the far more valuable purpose of exempting these playing fields from rates and taxes.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to add my voice to the appeal that has been made to His Majesty's Government. I have recently been elected to the post of Chairman of the Committee of the National Playing Fields Association, and therefore I am in very close contact with their work. I can assure the noble Lord opposite that we have up till now had the support of all, irrespective of political opinions, and I do not believe for one moment that political opinions will come in. I am therefore not making an appeal as from one side of the House to the other side, but as a man who wants to see playing fields distributed more equally and more universally throughout the country; and I believe that noble Lords opposite, to whom I address this appeal, have equal sympathy with that idea. The National Playing Fields Association in the last few years have received not only sums of money but gifts of land for playing fields, and there can be no doubt whatever that a good many of the playing fields which can now be seen, though in all too small numbers, in various parts of the country, are due to the efforts of that association.
All municipalities in their new town planning schemes are undoubtedly reserving land for this purpose. It is not, however, with the new town planning schemes that we are concerned, but with those older districts, where there was no foresight shown in providing for eventual requirements, and where at present playing fields are almost a negligible quantity. The action of the authorities in assessing the playing fields to rates and taxes is undoubtedly discouraging the efforts of those who are assisting us with grants of land and grants of money. It may, and I think undoubtedly will, prevent us from getting free grants of land which we

343
might otherwise have received. This is not only a matter of the towns. The eloquent appeal of Lord O'Hagan has been made for the towns, but I can assure the noble Lord that playing fields are required in country districts just as much as they are in urban districts. With the advent of the motor car there is at present great danger to children who continue to play about, as they used to do, on broad country roadsides, and it is imperative, especially in places near the big trunk roads where there are schools, to try to provide playing fields. If the present system of assessment is to go on it is quite certain that we shall fail in our efforts, and therefore we ask the Government, as representing the supreme authority, to do everything they possibly can, by meeting the request now made, to aid in a work in which, I am perfectly certain, everyone of them is as keenly interested as any of those who, like myself, are connected with the National Playing Fields Association.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I want to join with the noble Lord who has just spoken in appealing to the Government to reconsider the decision which has been reached in this matter. I am certain that when this decision was arrived at there could have been no idea how hardly this assessment would press upon those who enjoy these playing fields. One of our great needs in the neighbourhood of our large towns is for small spaces for games for the younger men and boys. At present they have to go long distances before they can find any available space for their Saturday afternoon games round London; the playing fields are gradually being pressed right out from the centre to the circumference. Year after year playing fields have to be given up, and, if a new playing field can be found, it is further off, and it makes it much more difficult for the boys in the poorer parts of our towns to reach those fields. At the present time it is extremely difficult to get any new place for recreation when a playing field has been given up, and I am told on good authority that some of the playing fields which are now in existence, and which are having a severe financial struggle, will have to be given up unless the Government succeed in some way or other in modifying the pressure which is brought upon them
344
through this assessment. I am perfectly certain that the Government, realising the facts, will express their sympathy in a most practical way, but I hope they will take action soon before any of these playing fields have actually to be abandoned.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I need hardly say that the health and recreation of our people roust be one of the first cares of a Socialist Government. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, of the increased assessments are naturally a matter of great concern. I agree that the National Playing Fields Association has done a great deal in awakening the public conscience to the lack of playing fields, and I am told that it was not at their desire that this question was raised. In view of the fact that my right hon. friend the Minister of Health is meeting that association tomorrow to discuss this very question with them in a sympathetic manner, the moderation of the speeches of noble Lords has been most marked and welcome. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, felt it necessary to attack my right hon. friend the Minister of Health, than whom no Minister of recent years has done more in helping towards public health and the general raising of the standard of the life of our people.
What we must try to do is to find a remedy for the effects of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, an Act which was passed by the last Government and was an extremely valuable and necessary Act in that it attempted to stabilise and equalise the assessments of rates all over the country. It. is perfectly true, of course, that some areas (and I think the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, admitted this) which were underrated previously have now been brought up to the general level throughout the country and that must have resulted in a feeling of dismay among those who have to pay rates on the increased assessments.
LORD O'HAGAN: Will the noble Lord forgive me for correcting him? I do not think I made any such admission. I said that where that had been the case the effect of what had taken place would knock some of these playing fields out of existence. I do not wish to be misinterpreted.
LORD MARLEY: I had no intention of misinterpreting the noble Lord. With regard to the first Question, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the Minister of Health stated in another place a few days ago that he would ask the Central Valuation Committee to make inquiries on this matter. In response to his request the Committee have obtained, and are obtaining, a great deal of information regarding the assessments in a representative selection of counties and county boroughs. I want to remind your Lordships that the result of the Rating and Valuation Act was to increase assessments all round. The information obtained by the Central Valuation Committee, which I have here, appears to show that in most of the counties and county boroughs concerned the proportionate increase in assessment in the case of playing fields has been less than the general proportionate increase in rateable value—it has been less—which means that, if anything, playing fields are, on the average, in a relatively better position than before the re-valuation as regards their rating liability.
While the noble Lord talked of assessments we most not forget that if assessments go up the rates in the £ go down because the total amount of money to be raised is approximately the same. I am not saying that that is the case in every instance, because there must he instances (we all know that there are instances) in which, while the assessments have gone up, that is, the rateable value has gone up, the rates in the £ have not gone clown sufficiently to show a saving but have left the organisation concerned with an increase. But it does indicate that in some cases local authorities have been well aware of the position with regard to playing fields and have shown sympathetic treatment in dealing with their new assessment by giving them a less high proportionate rise than they have given to other property when they were assessing it.
There is one point that might be put forward as a suggestion in this connection. It is a fact that playing fields in public recreation grounds do not pay any rates. Therefore, if more fields were dedicated to the public there would be no rates to pay on those fields. I would also remind your Lordships of
346
the fact that many rural authorities treat playing fields as agricultural land and, therefore, they are not rated at all.
LORD O'HAGAN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think I quoted instances where agricultural land used for recreation purposes has had rates put upon it.
LORD MARLEY: Only when a charge is made or when it is separated by fences from the rest of the land. When there are no——
LORD O'HAGAN: I do not want to contradict the noble Lord, but I think he is in error.
LORD MARLEY: If I am in error I am extremely sorry and I will certainly enquire into that point further. But I am credibly informed that if there are no fences up between the land used for recreation and the rest of the field then, as a rule, I believe I am right in saying, the land is treated as agricultural land and, therefore, is rot liable for any rates at all. There is one aspect of this case that I do not want to leave out. There is no doubt that in the Home Counties districts the increase in assessment has been much greater, as a rule, than in the rest of the country. I have figures which appear to show that the increase is some-times as much as 100 per cent. as an average in counties near London. There may be explanations for this. For one thing, near London there is tremendous competition for these playing grounds. Then there has been a very great increase in the type of equipment in playing fields. The pavilions are very much more elaborate and the grounds are much more carefully laid out. Anybody going by train out of London will see on either side these very elaborately equipped grounds. The competition alone tends to make the value go up and the rates to rise in consequence. Furthermore, a good many of these grounds are held by wealthy firms, by banks, and great distributing companies who raise the general standard and consequently add to the increase. There is no evidence that in cases like that any of these grounds will be closed despite the fact that those are the grounds where the rise in assessment is emphatically higher than is the case with the rest.
LORD O'HAGAN: The noble Lord does not contend that that is always the case even in that part of the country where those grounds exist?
LORD MARLEY: No, but those are the grounds which raise the average so enormously. Where, we will say, a ground was rated at £300 and is now rated at £1,500, that has a tremendous effect in raising the average rise in rates on all grounds. The Central Valuation Committee has set up a sub-committee to consider all this information and they are going to formulate such recommendations as may be necessary for the guidance of local authorities in valuing and assessing playing fields. I have no doubt that the Central Valuation Committee will be able to get together a body of evidence which will secure an evening up or an evening down of these assessments, and will, I believe, do much to meet the point raised by the noble Lord.
With regard to the second Question, the giving up of many private playing fields, I have already said that such information as we have does not suggest that any serious financial difficulty will follow the new assessments in the majority of eases. Most local authorities have exercised a proper discretion in seeing that the burden is adjusted to the circumstances, and it is a fact that the Department has no evidence whatever of any playing fields being given up owing to this increase in assessment. I am not saying that there are no cases of difficulty, but I do say that this new inquiry by the Central Valuation Committee may help to deal with the particular cases of diffien4 to which reference has been made.
As regards the third Question, the noble Lord is of course aware that a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons for the exemption of playing fields from rating, and it was defeated in Committee. I would remind the House that that Bill was opposed by very important organisations, such as the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, and others. On June 5, the Minister of Health, in replying to a question as to whether he proposed at an early date to introduce legislation to relieve playing fields, gave this statement, which I will read to the House:—
348
"I have the greatest sympathy with any movement which aims at the provision of playing fields for children and young persons, especially of the working classes, and it is the policy of the Ministry of Health to encourage such provision. There may be a case in some instances for some revision of recent assessments, and this is a matter on which the Central Valuation Committee, who are concerned to promote uniformity of assessment, may be able to make recommendations. But I do not think that complete exemption, which is also claimed for a number of other worthy objects, could be justified, or is the right way of dealing with any anomalies which may be shown to exist."
The Minister of Health is of opinion that anomalies in the assessment of playing fields are in the same category as many other anomalies in the assessment of properties, such as hospitals, schools and so on, and should be dealt with in the same way as are those properties.
I have already mentioned that the question as to recommendations is at present being considered by the Central Valuation Committee. If the Committee find that there are anomalies in those assessments, they will no doubt make recommendations for dealing with them, as they have made recommendations for dealing with other anomalies. Such recommendations will carry great weight with local authorities, and, moreover, being published, will be available to persons interested in the revision of the assessments of playing fields. If any organisation in which your Lordships are interested desires to pursue this matter, I may say for the information of your Lordships that the general question will receive a very willing hearing from the Central Valuation Committee, a body which meets very frequently. The subcommittee of that body is meeting on the 17th of this month specially to deal with this subject, and a full meeting takes place on the following day.
Finally, let me say that it must be the unanimous wish of all members of your Lordships' House to find a solution for the difficulties, to increase the number of playing fields, and to increase their close availability to all those who desire to use them, but we must not consider that one solution only must be the right one. Because a Bill is introduced which proposes one solution, it does not follow, if we oppose that solution, that we are opposed to the general question. It means we believe that there may be other

349
and better and more equitable solutions, which we must find. I trust that the answer I have tried to give to the noble Lord will make him realise that the Government are intensely desirous of meeting this difficulty, and I hope that he will be able to withdraw his Motion for Papers.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the suggestion that has fallen from my noble friend in putting his Questions to the Government is that playing fields, more particularly playing fields used for cricket and football and kindred games, not those used for polo, golf and games of that description, should be exempt from rates—that is to say, the benefits which the Local Government Act of 1929 extended to agriculture should be also extended to these playing fields. The noble Lord opposite has told us that this matter will be dealt with by the Central Valuation Committee. We know that the Central Valuation Committee is a statutory body, and that its duty is to secure uniformity of rating throughout the country. Its business is to recommend uniform methods of rating in regard to certain classes of hereditament. These playing fields are a particular class of hereditament, and I imagine it would be the duty of the Central Valuation Committee to advise as to their method of rating. But, although this Central Valuation Committee is a statutory body, there is no statutory obligation, so far as I know, upon local authorities to accept its recommendation, so it does not seem to me that this is that sovereign remedy which the noble Lord opposite seemed to think it was.
Whatever the Central Valuation Committee recommend, it depends upon the goodwill of the particular local authority as to whether that recommendation shall be accepted or not. If they recommend that the rates shall be reduced to a low figure and the local authorities accept that, no doubt a considerable measure of satisfaction will be given to my noble friend. But suppose they do not. What is to happen? My noble friend conies forward with a practical suggestion. His suggestion is that the benefits of Berating, which have been extended to agriculture, should also be extended to these playing fields. If after the Central Valuation Committee have clone all they can do—and I have
350
no doubt, as the noble Lord opposite said, they will do everything they can, giving a most full and careful consideration to the whole matter—and an appeal has been made to Quarter Sessions, the assessments are still so high that they are crippling these playing fields, then I hope we may obtain some further consideration from the Government. Surely it is not a very serious demand that my noble friend has made. It is not unreasonable. The Local Government Act, 1929, was a very large and comprehensive measure which did a vast deal of good with regard to the derating of agriculture and for industry, and now all that is suggested is that the extension of the same principle should be considered.
My noble friend did not insist on any particular way. All he really asked was that the matter should be gone into, and gone into carefully. We are told that the Minister of Health is going to meet the National Playing Fields Association and hear what they have to say. It seems to me—I have read the debate in the House of Commons—that their representatives there have already said a good deal and therefore the Minister of Health must be very largely in possession of their views. But we have not noticed any desire to meet them as yet. I must say I was impressed, and strongly impressed, by what fell from my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, and by what fell from other noble Lords, notably Lord Derby, in this debate. It seemed to me—I do not know because I have not gone into it very deeply—that they have a very strong ease and my opinion of their case was, I confess, augmented by the somewhat weak reply which fell from the lips of the noble Lord opposite.
My noble friend behind me gave figures. He said that rates had gone up considerably and that clubs had to pay so much more. The noble Lord opposite said that on the general average rates had gone down and clubs had not got to pay much more, but that was taking into consideration playing fields maintained by rich institutions such as banks, and he suggested that if they were evened out clubs had not much to complain of. I do not know that that will bring much comfort to the small people in village clubs. If die people in a small village club are

351
told that the South Western Railway Co.'s assessment has gone up very much and theirs only 10 per cent. of that, I do not think that would help them very much. They would not be very much cheered. I think this is a matter which requires very careful consideration. Here we have a Government who say that they are giving much consideration above all things to the health and welfare of the people, and we have seen the advantages and the blessings of the Lido transferred from Venice to the Serpentine. When we have a Government who tell us these things and who have carried out these performances, I think we are entitled to hope that they will do something to remedy this state of affairs. It is not really a very considerable matter. It cannot really mean a very heavy charge.
What we have to consider is the position of the small playing fields in urban districts, not in large places like London but in smoky industrial districts where it is difficult to get out into the country. In those districts the maintenance of those playing fields is of the utmost importance. I would like to remind your Lordships of one thing. I never thought that I should be standing in this House saying anything in favour of the Budget of 1909, but I do remember that when Mr. Lloyd George introduced his Budget in 1909 he exempted from his land values taxation playing fields such as those described by my noble friend behind me. Possibly in everything there may be some good, and it may be that in that very disastrous measure this particular point is one which I could recommend for imitation. I do not think I need say more. We are told we are to rely upon the Central Valuation Committee and see what they will give us. We are told that the Minister of Health is going to meet the National Playing Fields Committee and that he is sympathetic. We are told that there are other measures—they are not specified—and that at some remote date, or at not a very near date, proposals will be made.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, with the general purpose of the Motion I believe the whole of your Lordships' House will be unanimously in agreement. It is a definite effort to encourage what everybody desires to see—an improvement in the opportunities for poorer people to
352
have playing fields placed at their disposal. The noble Lord opposite does not deny that. He even gives to this Motion a kind of general benevolent acceptance. But he declined absolutely to accept the definite proposal that has been put forward, and he did so, as far as I can see, upon two grounds and two grounds alone.
The first is that he says it does not follow that any particular solution of the difficulty should be accepted, that there may be others and that you ought to hesitate before you accede to any particular one. I should at once assent to the reason of that answer if the other proposals were disclosed, but when there is no other solution put forward at all, and so far as I can see no prospect of any other solution, I find it difficult to see why the definite solution which has been discussed and is obviously reasonable should not be accepted. The next thing is this: he says it is an anomaly. "Anomaly" is one of those convenient words often used to cover a definite injustice. It means, as far as I know, something that is not in accordance with the ordinary law. I doubt if it is that, but at any rate it is something that ought not to be continued. Nobody would say an anomaly ought to be perpetuated. He then says: "Just think of the other anomalies that we have, hospitals and schools !" They are all equally anomalies and therefore you should do nothing at all! I should be glad to know whether he proposes some kind of omnibus Bill which is going to remove the anomalous situation of all these institutions. If not, the suggestion that because you have what is euphemistically called an anomaly here you ought to do nothing because there are anomalies elsewhere, appears to be the sort of argument that would prevent one being able to accomplish or achieve anything at all. I therefore hope the Motion will be pressed.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am bound to say I am gratified by the course that this debate has taken. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord opposite that the Minister of Health, in spite of the action taken the other day, does take an interest in, and wishes to encourage the provision of, playing fields. I can only hope that the action 'which may be taken now may be more in accordance with that sympathy than the action

353
which he took in another place. I am bound to say that I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said with regard to the character of the reply which I have been given. I am very glad that we have had the expression of opinion given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster. I do not think that the noble Lord opposite realises that this is a matter of urgency.
The noble Lord said—if I quote him rightly, and I hope that I am doing so—that his Department has no evidence that the closing of these playing fields was likely to take place. I would venture to remind the noble. Lord of some of the facts that I have told him myself and I would venture to remind him of what the right rev. Prelate said to him this afternoon. That is some evidence. I do not pretend that my evidence is worth anything of itself, but I have had access to practical evidence on this matter and I am convinced—as I think anybody else would be who had access to what is available to members of the National Playing Fields Association in London—that the danger which I have ventured to indicate this afternoon is a very real one. I am very glad to hear of the consultations and inquiries that are being made by the Central Valuation Committee, and I can only hope that something will result from them. It is true that most of the figures that I quoted were those of assessments, but I would remind the noble Lord that in some cases those figures were increased tenfold. Does the noble Lord seriously ask me to believe that under those conditions the actual charge to be paid by the club in question will be less than it is at the present time? With regard to the noble Lord's comment on the figures as coming from the Home Counties, what he says is, no doubt, perfectly true, but, though I did not quote them, I have here a number of figures from all parts of the country—Cheshire, Cornwall, Devonshire, Dorset, Bristol and so on. I think this should be borne in mind in considering this question.
The noble Lord talks of the levelling up or down of assessments. If that has the result of lowering the actual charge with which these clubs are confronted at the present time, we shall naturally welcome it. I can only hope that this will be the effect of the action that is pro-
354
posed. The noble Lord says that, if any organisation wished to pursue this subject, they would have opportunities of doing so. I can only assure the noble Lord that so far as the National Playing Fields Association are concerned, though I am not speaking here as their representative, as I hope I made clear, yet from what I know of their executive, on which I happen to sit in London, they certainly will see to it that this matter is not lost sight of and that, so far as they are able to do anything at all in the matter, something shall be done to save these clubs. Let me add how glad I was to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, in regard to the proposal that has been put forward in another place, to which I made considerable allusion, in regard to derating. When a noble Lord of his authority and legal knowledge tells us that this is obviously a reasonable Bill, I think that we of the National Playing Fields Association have good reason to congratulate ourselves.
I do not wish to prolong this discussion. I feel that, as things are, we cannot expect very much more, after what happened in another place, from the Minister of Health. I can only hope that the interest that we are assured that the Socialist Party feel in all these questions will result in action and not merely in expressions of sympathy. With the best will in the world, we are a little sceptical when things happen such as happened in another place. I can only say in conclusion that I am disappointed with the reply which has been given to me. I am thankful for the small mercies that have been extended, but I am bound to say that the reply was a very evasive one. I can only thank the noble Lord for such assurances as he has given us, but I am quite sure that members of these clubs up and down the country, north, south, east and west, who see themselves confronted with these difficulties at the present time, will be very disappointed with the Minister responsible in these matters if nothing is actually done and if the whole thing fizzles out in sympathetic expressions. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment, moved by Lord Banbury of Southam on May 27, to the Motion for the Second Reading—namely, That the Bill he read a second time this day three months.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, some few weeks ago the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill was adjourned in response, I think, to a general feeling that prima facie there were some few objections to the Bill which had not been entirely met to the satisfaction of your Lordships' House. I think it is fair to say that the attitude of your Lordships was one of sympathy towards the object of the Bill but that there were certain objections, particularly that regarding a Committee which was stated to be sitting, which your Lordships felt required to be met rather more fully than they had been met on that occasion. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like very briefly to re-state, as I understand it, the case for the Bill and the urgent necessity which I believe exists for it, and then to tell your Lordships what is, in fact, the answer to the objections that were raised on the occasion of the last debate.
The object of this Bill is to secure Sunday closing of hairdressers' and barbers' shops, and the real fact of the matter is that Sunday opening of such shops is a comparatively new thing. It is true that prior to the end of the last century, under stress of competition, some hairdressers and barbers were beginning to open their places of business on Sunday, but it was done, I might almost say, furtively, because there was a general impression that the trade of a hairdresser came under the ban of the Lord's Day Observance Act, 1677. Competition greatly increased the number of shops opened, and in 1900 a test case was brought. I believe a local authority brought an action against a trader who had his shop open on Sunday, and the case went to the High Court, which held that the hairdressers' trade was not one that fell within the scope of the Act of 1677. The moment that decision was given the opening of barbers' shops on Sunday, instead of being unusual and rather furtive, became very much
356
intensified, and, as your Lordships will readily see, competition ensured that in any area, once Sunday opening began, it was very difficult for traders to hold out, with the result that Sunday opening became very much more general than it had ever been.
The position became very much worse in that respect after the War. About 1920 there came a kind of boom in hairdressing—your Lordships will recollect the circumstances—and particularly in ladies' hairdressing, and owing to this great boom a very large number of young people went into the trade. I believe that in the Census of 1921 hairdressers numbered only about 32,000—I presume this refers to England and Wales—and it is confidently anticipated that in the coming Census of 1931 that number will he doubled. That large increase is largely due to young people, almost boys and girls, who are working excessively long hours. This is a trade in which very long hours indeed are worked, because under the Shops Act an extra hour is allowed in this particular trade. The hours are commonly from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. throughout the week, from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday, and in addition up to 1 p.m. on Sunday, or, quite commonly, up to 7 p.m. on Sunday evening. In North London there are shops that are open for those excessive hours, averaging over twelve hours a day.
I am quite sure that no one of your Lordships would think it right that young people should be forced to work such excessive hours as that. Indeed, that is not the whole story, because in the trade of a barber, when there are customers in the shop at closing time, they expect to be attended to, and therefore the unfortunate assistant does not finish his work for another twenty minutes or half an hour over the very extended official time. I think, therefore, it is fair to say that Sunday closing in this trade is urgently required. A point was made the other day by a noble Lord who asked why this trade should be treated exceptionally. The answer, of course, is that the promoters of this Bill are not asking your Lordships to treat this trade exceptionally, but to put it back where it really belongs—namely, under the Lord's Day Observance Act.
The main objections that were brought forward against the Second Reading of

357
this Bill were two in number. One was that a Select Committee is at present sitting to consider this subject or something cognate. The fact of the matter is that the Select Committee referred to has really been appointed to enquire into and report upon the hours of labour in shops. It is a subject totally unconnected with the closing of hairdressers' shops on Sunday. It is perfectly clear that the Report cannot possibly deal with this question of the Sunday closing of hairdressers' shops. Other noble Lords, I think, expressed some doubt as to the attitude of the Home Office, and I can say with complete confidence that the attitude of the Home Office since 1925 has been one of complete sympathy and support. This Bill has received the support of all Parties in another place. It was fully discussed and was passed on the Third Reading without a Division. The hairdressing trade, it is no exaggeration to say, are unanimous in support of the Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh no. May I present a letter to the noble Lord from a hairdressers' association, praying that the Bill may be rejected?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Possibly unanimity is not a thing we shall obtain in this world, whether among hairdressers or any other body, but I am in a position to say that there have been three plebiscites of employers in this trade, and they supported the Bill to the, extent of 93, 95 and 97 per cent. respectively. That was before the element of Jewish opposition had been overcome. Since these plebiscites were taken the Jewish section have agreed to support the Bill, owing to the provision enabling Jewish traders to contract out by closing on Saturday in return for trading on Sunday. That enables hairdressers, whether Jewish or Christian, to have five and a half days work. In addition to its being supported by the trade, I may mention that it is a non-Party Bill, that it is backed by members of every Party, and by a large number of outside organisations. It has received the support of the National Federation of Chambers of Trade. The various traders' organisations, the various organisations of employees, the trade unions, the Anglican and the Free Churches, the National Federation of Brotherhoods, the Early Closing Association, all give the Bill support. Moreover
358
it has had an almost unanimously favourable reception in the Press of the country. I know that your Lordships look with suspicion upon anything which is described as an agreed Bill—there is always some cantankerous person ready to get up and say, "I do not agree"—but if ever there was such a thing as an agreed Bill this is it, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give the measure a Second Reading to-day.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I always hesitate before I inflict my views upon you twice in one evening. Indeed often think an apology is needed if I make even a slighter demand upon your patience. But upon this Bill I have some information which I think should be laid before the House. Several years ago I was asked to preside over an inquiry as to the labour of children under fourteen in the County of London, and one of the special subjects of inquiry were the conditions in hairdressers' shops. There were many charges made which it is wholly unnecessary to examine, but the one thing which impressed me most forcibly was this, that the percentage of tuberculosis in those shops was so far in excess of the normal figure that it was obviously in the interests of young people that they should be as far as possible exempted from the obvious peril of being employed in those places. We all know that a great number of hairdressers' shops are underground, and the obvious susceptibility of the employees to tuberculosis is, I believe, due to this, that in those places there is an enormous amount of small fine hair, which necessarily gets breathed by the people in those places, causing an irritation of the lungs and, therefore, producing a condition very favourable for the development of the germ of tuberculosis.
It follows that this particular business is above all others the one in which you ought to secure that there shall be one clear, clean day in the week. Therefore I think that this Bill, which strives to secure that that day should be fixed for Sunday, which is the day on which other trades close, is a fair and rational Bill, which ought to be supported. Of course we all know that the subject of Sunday trading in this country is what a noble Lord who has now left the House would call an anomaly. It certainly is very odd. As your Lordships know, if a

359
tailor contracts to make clothes on Sunday, the contract is void, but if he contracts to make boots it is good. In one case he has contracted to do something within his trade and it is void. But in the other he has contracted to do something outside his trade and it is good. With these eccentricities of the law, however, we need not concern ourselves at this moment. Is there any particular reason why this particular industry should be carried on on Sunday? My submission is that not only is there no reason why it should be, but there is every reason why it should not be. I am glad to hear that there is such a general measure of agreement with regard to the Bill, and I hope it will not meet with opposition in this House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I moved the rejection of the Bill some weeks ago, when it was introduced by a noble Earl on the opposite side of the House. Now it has been supported by a noble Lord on this side. The objection which I raised was this, that I did not think it was right to interfere with a grown man who wished to work himself—not to employ an assistant but to work himself—whenever he chose to work. I pointed out that if there was objection to the long hours of his assistants, there was at the present moment a Committee sitting to deal with the hours of shop assistants, and that therefore the proper course was to reject this Bill and to allow the findings of the Committee, if they desired to include hairdressers' assistants, to be put into another Bill. I considered that there was no reason at the present moment, above every other moment, when this country was suffering from unemployment and depression and a bad financial state, to say that I as a grown man must not do what I like on certain days. It is a new idea in the world that a grown man may not do what he likes with his own labour.
The noble Lord says that hairdressers are unanimously in favour of the Bill. Undoubtedly there are a great number in favour of the Bill, but I have had several letters, and especially from hairdressers who do not employ assistants, asking me to persist in my objection to the Bill. I have here a letter, which I handed to the noble Lord, from the East
360
London Hairdressers' Association. It says that a resolution was passed at the general meeting:
"That this meeting of master hairdressers of East London strongly object to the religious principle of the Sunday Closing Bill"—
and it is added that they "implore you to use your best endeavour to reject the Bill, in view of the hardships it will entail." I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster has read the Bill carefully, but let me point out to him that under the Bill if you happen to be a Jew you can work on Sunday, if you happen to be on board a ship you can work en Sunday, and if you happen to be in an hotel you can work on Sunday. Why should the richer people who live in hotels be able to have their hair cut or to be shaved on Sunday, when the poorer people who do not live in hotels are not able to do that?
Then there is also the question of whether or not it is advisable to say that a Jew may do what a Christian cannot. How are you going to establish whether or not a man is a Jew? He may be converted. This Bill may convert certain not very earnest Christians, who may become Jews for the purpose of this Bill. How are you going to find out whether or not they are Jews? It seems to me that what we ought to do, instead of preventing people from working on Sundays, is to encourage everybody to work as long, and as often, and as much, and as hard as they possibly can if this country is to return to prosperity. Then the noble Lord spoke of other trades. May I point out that there is no Act which prevents a railway man driving an engine on Sunday, and there is no Act which prevents a man driving a motor omnibus on Sunday? I think I saw in the newspaper some time ago a report of an accident to a motor omnibus driver who was burnt on a Sunday. There is nothing to prevent working on Sunday, either in omnibuses, or on the railway, or in cinemas. If anything were done in this direction it is in the cinemas, which should be closed on Sundays, and not in the shops of honest workers like hairdressers.
There are undoubtedly two causes that work for this Bill. First of all, there is Sunday observance, and then there is the idea that you should dictate to people

361
what they ought to do. There is not any doubt that on the day we adjourned the debate last time we should have defeated the Bill, and I hope sincerely that we shall defeat the Bill now. I would again emphasise the face that this does not in any way prevent legislation being passed with regard to the long hours of work of shop assistants. That can be decided by the Committee which is sitting at the present time to deal with this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I shall not stand between the right rev. Prelate opposite and the House for more than a moment, for the best of reasons—namely, that I believe that I have no right to speak at all. I am afraid that technically I exhausted my right when I spoke urging the adjournment of the debate on the last, occasion. Perhaps I may be permitted to say in one sentence that I cannot follow the argument of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam altogether. It seemed to be directed to proving that there ought to be no restriction of work on Sunday in any trade. I am sure he did not mean that, but that was the logical conclusion of his argument. All I feel entitled to say, in the circumstances to which I have alluded, is that if my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh goes to a Division I shall feel bound to support him. I do so because there seems to be no reason why hairdressers should be exempted from the general rule of not working on Sundays. All the more do I say so because up till the beginning of the century that was thought to be the law. It is only comparatively recently that it was found not to be so. All I have said is that I should propose to vote myself for the Second Reading, but I hope your Lordships will allow me to add that that does not mean that I support all the provisions of the Bill. I think there are some which are extremely doubtful, and I would not like to pledge myself in any way to give an equal support to the details of the Bill when your Lordships come to consider them in Committee.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I admit that I was very disappointed with, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam. I quite hoped that, with the explana-
362
tions which had been given, he would have withdrawn his opposition to the Bill. This is not a Bill which compels men to abstain from work against their will. It is a Bill which has received the overwhelming support both of employers and employed in the trade. Again and again, this matter has been discussed and if you could take a plebiscite of the 50,000 people engaged in this business I have not the slightest doubt that you would obtain almost a unanimous vote in favour of this Bill. The noble Lord tells us that the Bill presses hardly upon the Jews, and that it may possibly lead to the conversion of some Jew to Christianity. What are the facts? The Bill provides that if a Jew works on Sunday he must not carry on his business on Saturday. He will have his holy day on the Saturday. There is no kind of hardship to the Jews. And, as a matter of fact, I understand that the Jews have accepted this measure.
Let me point out what would happen if this little Bill were defeated. For thirty or forty years people engaged in this trade have been trying to secure a holiday on Sundays. If the Bill is defeated there will be no great agitation. There is behind this measure no strong organisation, no strong trade union which will affect votes. But what will happen is that it will mean bitter disappointment to a large number of men who are already working long hours, and it will mean that a large number of boys and girls who ought to be having some time off on the Sunday, who are working already long hours in the week, will have to go on working year after year until some Bill like this is passed. I am not so much concerned for the older people who own these businesses, though I am sure that it would be well for them to have their holiday, but I am deeply concerned for the younger people engaged in this trade, who, like their contemporaries, ought to have at any rate one day in the week free from labour. I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a short observation on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, with regard to the association from which he read a letter. I would call your Lordships'

363
attention to the fact that the objection is emphasised upon religious grounds, and it is perfectly clear that that letter comes from some Jewish organisation. That I think we may safely disregard, because it is the fact that the representatives of the Jewish religion have accepted this Bill as being fair treatment for their co-religionists, and therefore I do not think that a single objection emanating from that source need weigh with your Lordships. Then there is the question of how you are going to establish whether a man is a Jew or not. That is met by the definition in the Bill. A man has to give notice to the local authority, and, having given notice that he intends to be open on Saturday or Sunday, that will be the arrangement to which he has to adhere. The only other objections raised by the noble Lord, I think, was that he was considering those hairdressers who do not employ assistants.
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.
That is one of the very classes that will he most helped by this Bill. The hairdresser who does not employ any assistants is one of the people who find the competition hardest if he keeps open, and who is most keenly in favour of having this Bill passed. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move that leave be given to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, to vote in his place for the remainder of the Session.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 3.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Clwyd, L.

Elibank, V. [Teller.]

Daryngton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Faringdon, L.

Mersey, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

De La Warr, E.

Hanworth, L.

Grey, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Lichfield, E.

Abinger, L.

Marley, L.

Lucan, E.

Alvingham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Onslow, E.

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Peel, E.

Askwith, L.

Sanderson, L.

Plymouth, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Wicklow, E.

Templemore, L.

Buckmaster, L.

Waleran, L.

Astor, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Auckland, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Teynham, L. [Teller.]

Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.