Lords Sitting of 2 July 1936

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (EALING AND SHEPHERD'S BUSH RAILWAY EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CANNOCK ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1936.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, with reference to this Order, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 1:
Amendment of s. 12 of principal Act.
". Subsection (1) of Section twelve of the principal Act shall have effect as if in the definition of ' Governor,' the words ' and of British India ' were omitted."
The noble Viscount said: The Amendment which stands in my name follows upon a few observations which I ventured

409
to make on the Second Reading of this Bill. In the course of those remarks I advocated that Indian Governors—and I refer particularly to those of political origin—should come under the provisions of the Bill, and that these Indian Governors should be dealt with in the same way as, for instance, are Governors of the Australian States. The point that I particularly wished to make was that supposing a Governor of an Australian State served for five years in that State, say the State of Victoria, and subsequently went to India and became Governor of Bombay where he served for another five years, making ten in all, he should be just as eligible to receive a pension as a Governor who had served for five years in Victoria to begin with and subsequently five years in South Australia making ten years in all. Or, conversely, if a Governor of political origin served in Bombay for five years and then subsequently was considered to have such qualifications that it was desirable that he should serve for another five years in India, say in the Province of Madras, he should be eligible to receive a pension just as Governors are eligible to receive pensions if they have served in two Australian States.
I believe that that is a perfectly fair and equitable proposition, and whilst I recognise that in the past Indian Governors have not received pensions and that such pensions have always been regarded as being part of the Indian Government Service, I see no reason why a Governor who is sent to India after public service in this country should not be regarded on the same plane as is the similar type of individual who is sent to an Australian State. For that reason I have put down this Amendment to the principal Act to enable Indian Governors of the class that I have described to receive Governors' pensions in future. It is true that my Amendment may go a little too far in its drafting, but it was very difficult for me to find the exact wording that was required in order to achieve what I desired to do. I can only put forward this Amendment in the hope that the Government may receive it sympathetically, and if it can be worded in some way to meet the position which I have outlined I shall be very grateful. I am sure that many others who are interested in this subject will also be grateful.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Elibank.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: As I promised on the Second Reading, I have gone very carefully into the point that the noble Viscount has raised. Nobody can be unsympathetic to the case he has put forward. May I explain the position? As the law stands at the present moment any one who serves as a Governor in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, exclusive of the British Islands and British India, for a period of not less than ten years becomes eligible for a pension. The object, or the effect at any rate, of the noble Viscount's Amendment is to revoke the exclusion of British India from this provision. The actual effect of the Amendment would be to make all persons holding Governorships in India Governors for all purposes of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Acts—the various Acts which deal with that particular subject. In other words, it would render them eligible for pensions from the United Kingdom Exchequer upon the same terms as Governors of Colonies. This means that any one who has served as a Governor-General, Governor of a Presidency, or Governor of a Province, in India, and who has completed ten years as such, would be eligible for a pension from the United Kingdom Exchequer.
I ought to explain further, what perhaps is not quite fully realised, that if this Amendment is accepted Indian Provincial Governors, who are almost invariably promoted from the Indian Civil Service and consequently draw pensions by virtue of that Service, would be further eligible—that is, in addition to those pensions—for a pension from the United Kingdom Exchequer. I feel quite certain that that is not what the noble Viscount intended.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That is not what is intended. I tried to explain in my speech that I do not wish to include members of the Indian Civil Service who become Governors. I was referring particularly to those who come from here owing to public service, political service or otherwise, and I believe that as my Amendment is drafted it may not meet that point of view. I wish we could get

411
an Amendment, perhaps on the Report stage or Third Reading, that would meet that point of view.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I quite appreciate what the noble Viscount says, but I am merely pointing out what the actual effect of his Amendment would be. As a matter of fact, what the noble Viscount terms a political, that is to say a non-Service Presidency Governor in India, would only very rarely be affected by this Amendment, because it is only on very rare occasions that such a Governor actually completes ten years of service. But that is merely a detail. However that may be, I am not really quite clear as to whether it is the desire of the noble Viscount that Indian Governors, such as those to whom we have been referring—namely, the political Governors—should become eligible for pensions actually from the United Kingdom Exchequer.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I say that is my view? I believe in this case that there would be very few of them, and it would be worth while.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: If that is so I cannot see how, in view of the past history of this question—that is, the pensions of Indian Governors—the Government could accept this additional burden upon the United Kingdom Exchequer. It would be a radical deviation from the policy which has obtained up till now in the treatment of Indian Governors, because I think I am right in saying that up till now no pension has ever been paid from the United Kingdom Exchequer to Governors who have been Governors of Indian Presidencies or Provinces. The noble Viscount told me that it was his desire that these pensions should be paid from the United Kingdom Exchequer. Therefore there is no object in my going into detail on the other alternative, which is that these pensions should be paid from Indian revenue. As I have pointed out, in the past the pay of Indian Governors has been fixed at a rate which is considered adequate and on the understanding that no pensions should as the result of their service. I think it only right to remind the Committee that this is a matter which perhaps could have been more properly dealt with when we were discussing the Government of India Bill last year, because it was in that Bill that detailed provisions were made for the salaries
412
and allowances of the Governors-General and Governors of India. I must further point out that that Act makes no provision, as your Lordships know, for Governors' pensions. As I understand it this was done deliberately for the reasons I have already pointed out—namely, that there was never any intention of making these posts pensionable. Therefore, the matter was not raised during the course of the debates on that measure.
There is just one other consideration I want to mention. I do not wish to over-stress it, but it is one that cannot be entirely ignored purely for practical reasons. It is that this Amendment would have the effect of placing upon the Exchequer a new burden quite outside the original scope of the Bill. This Bill really was meant to deal with certain inequalities and injustices in the methods of fixing the pensions of Colonial Governors, and there was no intention of bringing within its scope the Governors of Indian Presidencies or Provinces. I therefore feel it would not be practical politics to return this Bill to another place with an Amendment such as the one which the noble Viscount has proposed. The point that the noble Viscount has raised is one which should be considered on its merits, I entirely agree, but I do not think—and I hope your Lordships will agree with me—that it is one which can very well be dealt with in the measure we are discussing to-day. I hope that after that full explanation the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am glad to note the sympathetic tone of the last remark made by my noble friend but, having regard to the substance of his speech, I have very little hope that that sympathetic tone will be translated into something practical. However, in view of what the noble Earl has said, I do not propose to press this Amendment. I would only reiterate that I hope the Government may see their way to take this matter into consideration with the Government of India and see whether something can be done to remedy it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, before we proceed to the consideration of this important and certainly most complicated Bill, I hope your Lordships will allow me to ask the Leader of the House one or two questions, which questions, when they are answered, will enable us to see more clearly what is going to happen to the Bill and what will be the result of our voting "Content" or "Not-Content." The first point I should like to put to the noble Viscount who leads the House is this: Who is in charge of the Bill? The noble Marquess whose name appeared on the Order Paper for the Second Reading is here and I presume is still in charge of the Bill, but he has put down no Amendments at all, so I presume he is quite satisfied with his Bill. My next question is: Do the Government accept responsibility for the Bill? I presume they must. They have put down fifteen pages of Amendments. Surely they could not allow their spokesman to get up and put forward any one of these Amendments without putting their whole force behind him to ensure that the House agreed with what he put forward. Lastly, I should like to know whether the Government Whips will be put on. Surely you could not refrain from putting on the Government Whips on a Bill to which the promoter has put down no Amendments and the Government have put down fifteen pages. Perhaps the noble Viscount can enlighten me on these points.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I am extremely obliged to my noble friend for having given me notice of these constitutional conundrums to which I must attempt an answer. His first question is: Who is in charge of the Bill? He correctly anticipated the answer. It is the noble Marquess who sits behind me, Lord
414
Dufferin. Does the Government accept responsibility for the Bill? The answer to that is that the Bill is, as my noble friend knows, a Private Member's Bill, and the interest of the Government in the Bill, which has always been treated as a Private Member's Bill, has been, I understand, confined to a promise to do their best to make it a workable Bill. It is in pursuance of that promise that the large number of Amendments on the Order Paper have been so placed. My noble friend Lord Munster will watch the Bill on behalf of the Government, and indeed, on the Second Reading, he informed your Lordships that a large number of Amendments would be necessary. The attitude of the Government to the Bill, if I may say so, might be, perhaps, not incorrectly described at this stage as one of irresponsible benevolence. The answer, therefore, to the third question, Will the Government Whips be put on to all these Amendments? is that these Amendments are in pursuance of the attempt to make the Bill a workable Bill, but are not in any sense of the order of Amendments to which the Government would attach such vital importance, from their point of view, as to justify them in putting on the Government Whips. It will be entirely for a free vote of your Lordships, on a Private Member's Bill, to decide whether these Amendments that the Government consider are the best way of redeeming their promise to make it a workable Bill, should or should not be incorporated.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, may I venture to suggest that when the Government wish to transform a Bill so radically as this one, they should circulate some explanatory memorandum before the Bill goes into Committee? I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has fully mastered the import of these Amendments.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Not at all.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: And I presume the noble Marquess in charge has, and I hope the Minister who is watching this Bill will be able to explain the various Amendments without infringing the wishes of your Lordships at large that a noble Lord should not read any speech.

415
But when I consider the mass of new matter that is in this massive tome which your Lordships hold in your hands, I do submit that so great a pabulum ought not to be submitted to your Lordships without some attempt at eupeptic emollient.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps I ought to say a word or two before we start the discussion on the Amendments. I did explain on Second Reading, and, if I remember rightly, I drew attention no less than twice to the fact that it would be necessary on the Committee stage of this Bill to put down a large number of Amendments to bring the measure into something approaching workmanlike order. The Amendments today fall into two classes. In the first place there are a number of purely drafting Amendments to which I have no doubt my noble friend will not object. The second series is made up of a number of Amendments of substance which I shall explain in the course of the discussion on the Bill. These Amendments reflect the results of a good deal of further consideration and inquiry by the Home Office since the first stage of the Bill in this House. We have been in consultation with the promoters and other associations connected with the Bill, and between them and us there have been drawn up the Amendments which stand in my name to-day. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything further, except perhaps to draw the attention of the House to Clause 5 of the Bill which I am redrafting completely. I did that merely because I thought it would meet the wishes of your Lordships that we should have an entirely new clause at that place in the Bill instead of having a large number of small Amendments which might be somewhat difficult to understand. I hope, anyhow, that your Lordships will support the promoters of this Bill to-day and will be prepared to discuss the Amendments which are on the Paper.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend Lord Munster will explain why it was that these Amendments were not put to the Standing Committee in the House of Commons, because the Bill has come to this House in a terrible state.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I think the preliminary exchange of information has been of value to your Lordships. It has cleared the air, and the lead given by the noble Viscount who leads the House of irresponsibility on the part of the Government—benevolent irresponsibility—we propose to apply to any Amendments or points that we may make on this side of the House. In other words, while even in the best organised Parties there are points of difference, on this occasion we shall leave those points of difference to individuals to emphasise or not as they desire.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to the general consensus of opinion that I am no fit person to take charge of this Bill, but I would like to say that the only reason why there are so many Amendments is that this is really a genuine attempt to get a good Bill and not a bad one. For that reason I would like to make it perfectly plain that the promoters and myself are extremely grateful to the Home Office for taking an immense amount of trouble to try to make this a good and workmanlike Bill. I feel it is rather unfair that Lord Mount Temple and others should complain that that which is a Private Member's Bill, and which he considers ought never to have been a Private Member's Bill, has been improved by the aid of a Government Department. As for the Government Whips, there are other ways of getting Amendments passed or rejected in your Lordships' House, and I propose to use not Government Whips but logic and reason.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, by leave of the House I desire to ask: What shall we do if the reasons given by the noble Marquess do not agree with the advice given by the Government?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Closing of shops on Sunday.
1. Every shop shall, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be closed for the serving of customers on Sunday.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, after "Every shop," to insert "store, warehouse, fun fair, shop used for fun fairs,

417
wholesale warehouse." The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, owing to the extremely complicated nature and the number of the Amendments, I read a good many of the arguments that I bring forward to support my Amendments. I know it is a bad habit, but sometimes it means that you have taken more trouble over a Bill when you read your speech than when you simply get up and say a few words. With regard to the first Amendment that I move, may I say that I think, if we are endeavouring to pass a workmanlike measure dealing with Sunday trading, we ought to see that if at all possible we do not exclude classes of business or classes of people from the purview of the Bill.
The reason I want to include the words of my Amendment is simply this. In the East End of London, and at Leeds and other places, there has lately grown up a class of warehouse and wholesale business in which as a matter of fact retail trade is carried on on a Sunday. The wholesalers in their big warehouses compete with the small shopkeepers. That is perfectly legitimate, and I cannot complain of it, but, naturally, they take away a good deal of the small shopkeepers' trade. We are, rightly or wrongly, curtailing the opportunities for retail trade on Sunday by this Bill, but these warehouses are excluded from the purview of the Bill altogether, and, therefore, they can go on trading as before, because they are not shops within the meaning of the Bill. The point I want to make is that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if Parliament thinks that the small retailer's shop should be closed on a Sunday why should it not also insist that the warehouses, which are in many respects retail traders, be closed too? I attach even greater importance to this because of the fact that inside these warehouses are a great number of employees who are engaged in work for the Monday or the Tuesday. They carry on their work on Sunday for the benefit of the owners of these businesses on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and why should not the warehouse assistants in these big establishments, working as they do behind shutters with the place nominally closed, have the same protection as shop assistants who work in the retail shops?
I hope and trust that whoever is in charge of the Bill—I do not know whether to refer to the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin and Ava, or the noble Earl, Lord Munster; the heavenly twins we will call them—will look favourably upon my Amendment, which is not designed to wreck the Bill but only to try and improve it.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after (" shop ") insert (" store, warehouse, fun fair, shop used for fun fairs, wholesale warehouse ").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I very much regret that as far as the heavenly twins are concerned this one is in an evil quarter of the heavens for the noble Lord who moved this Amendment. This Bill is intended to deal with shops—that is to say, shops as defined under the 1912 Act. Never in the history of shop legislation have warehouses and wholesale establishments been brought within its provisions except in a very minor degree in 1934 with regard to the employment of children. Therefore I do not think that you could possibly expect us in a Bill of this kind so far to deviate from established practice as to widen its scope not merely to include retail shops but warehouses. I notice that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment did not refer very much in his speech to fun fairs. I think he was wise in that case because, as your Lordships will probably realise, either the Amendment has no relation to fun fairs at all or else so far as it is relevant the point is already covered in the Bill. Any retail business carried on in any fun fair is already dealt with by the Bill, and so far as the real business of a fun fair is concerned it has nothing to do with the provisions of the Bill. On those two grounds, that it would widen the Bill far too much and that as far as fun fairs are concerned it has very little relevance, I must ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"Provided that a shop may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday—

419

(a) for the purposes of any transaction mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act; and

(b) until after the expiration of nine months from the commencement of this Act for the purposes of any transaction mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really drafting, but perhaps I may say that the adoption of the wording in my Amendment will enable the somewhat elaborate provisions contained in the existing Clause 2 of the Bill to be substituted by the more simple proviso which I am now moving.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exemption for certain trades or businesses]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Partial exemption orders.
3.—(1) The local authority may by order (in this Act referred to as a "partial exemption order") made in accordance with the provisions of this Act provide that all shops in which there are carried on such of the trades or businesses mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act as are specified in the order, being shops situated in the area of the authority or such part thereof as is so specified, may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday subject to the limitations hereafter provided.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, a partial exemption order shall not authorise a shop to be open for the serving of customers after ten o'clock on Sunday morning:
Provided that—
(a) an order affecting shops situated in places frequented as holiday resorts during certain seasons of the year may, for such period or periods as may be specified therein (not exceeding in the aggregate more than four months in any year), authorise the shops to which the order applies to be open until such hour later than ten o'clock on Sunday morning, not being later than one o'clock on Sunday afternoon, as may be so specified;
(3) Where there is carried on in the same shop any trade or business specified in a
420
partial exemption order applying to the shop together with any other trade or business which is not so specified and is not for the time being and as respects that shop excepted from the provisions of Section one of this Act, the exemption conferred by the order shall apply to the shop only so far as the carrying on of the trade or business so specified is concerned and subject to such conditions as may be so specified.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), after "provide that," to leave out all words except "be open for the serving of customers on Sunday subject to the limitations hereafter provided" and insert "After the expiration of nine months from the commencement of this Act shops situated in their area or in such part thereof as is specified in the order may for the purposes of such of the transactions mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act as may be so specified." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from the beginning to (" be ") in line 13 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential, as a new clause which I shall move later makes special provisions for holiday resorts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
Special provisions in respect of the sale of meals and refreshments off the premises.
" .—(1) Where the local authority are satisfied that the occupiers of shops or any class of shops which, by virtue of the provisions of this Act, may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday for the purpose of the sale of meals or refreshments for

421
consumption elsewhere than at the shop at which they are sold, are desirous that such shops shall no longer be entitled to be so open, the local authority may by order made in accordance with the provisions of this Act provide that such shops or any class of such shops specified in the order, being shops situated in their area or in such part thereof as may be so specified, shall cease to be entitled to be open for the serving of customers on Sunday for that purpose:
Provided that no order made under this section shall—

(a) apply to shops in which the sale of meals or refreshments for consumption at the shop forms a substantial part of the business carried on therein; or

(b) prevent the sale on Sunday of meals and refreshments elsewhere than at a shop except to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.

(2) An order under this section may provide for the provisions thereof being in force throughout the year or during such periods as may be specified in the order, and may be made subject to such conditions as may be so specified."
The noble Earl said: This is the first of three new clauses which I propose to move and it deals with the sale of meals and refreshments for consumption off the premises. In explaining its effect I shall have to refer to the exemption which is contained in the First Schedule to the Bill for the sale of meals and refreshments for consumption off the premises. As the Bill stands, that exemption is limited to establishments such as restaurants or cafés, which do a substantial trade in the sale of meals and refreshments for consumption on the premises; but inquiry has shown that this restricted exemption would not be adequate to meet the needs of the public in all places. Accordingly, under an Amendment which I shall be moving later, it is proposed to restore the general exemption for the sale of refreshments.
However, and now I come to the point of this new clause which I am moving, if the exemption is so widened there is the possibility that some shopkeepers, bakers for instance, may keep their premises open on Sunday on the plea that they are selling their goods as "refreshments," to the detriment of their competitors who may have no wish to open their shops on Sunday. Therefore this new clause empowers the local authority, if they are satisfied that two-thirds of the shops concerned so desire, to make an order directing, in effect, that shops of any particular class, over the whole or
422
any part of the district, shall not be open on Sunday for the off refreshment trade. I hope that I have sufficiently explained this new clause to your Lordships. I agree that it is somewhat difficult and complicated, but I understand that my noble friend the Marquess of Dufferin is prepared to support it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new clause.(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 3, to insert:
Provisions as to shops where several trades or businesses are carried on.
" . Where several trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop and any of those trades or businesses consist only of transactions of such a nature that if they were the only transactions carried on in the shop the provisions of this Act requiring the shop to be closed for the serving of customers for the whole or any part of Sunday would not apply to the shop, the shop may be kept open for the whole or any part of Sunday, as the case may be, for the purposes of those transactions alone, subject, however, to such conditions as may be prescribed."
The noble Earl said: This new clause provides for the case of the mixed shop, that is, a shop in which several trades or businesses are carried on. It is necessary to make it clear that where one or more of the trades or businesses carried on in a shop are exempt from the closing provisions of the Bill and others are not, the shop may only be kept open for the purposes of the exempted trades. The clause is on the same lines as the clauses in the existing Shops Act dealing with mixed shops, but is worded so as to cover the different circumstances which may arise under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new clause.(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 3, to insert:
Special provisions for holiday resorts.
.—(1) Where the area or any part of the area of a local authority is a district which is frequented as a holiday resort during certain seasons of the year, the local authority may by order provide that on such Sundays as may be specified in the order, shops or any class of shops, being shops situated in the district or in such part thereof as may be so specified may,

423
subject to such conditions and during such hours as may be so specified, be open for the serving of customers for the purpose of any of the transactions specified in the Third Schedule to this Act or such of them as may be specified in the order:
Provided that the Sundays specified in any such order shall not be more than eighteen in any year.
The noble Earl said: This new clause is one of importance and the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has placed on the Paper an Amendment to it. During the discussion of this Bill in another place a new clause was moved with the object of making special provision for seaside resorts. The clause would have permitted the local authorities at seaside resorts to exempt from the closing provisions of this Bill any class of trade or business where an exemption was considered desirable in the interests of the persons frequenting the district. The clause was opposed. I need not delay the Committee by giving all the reasons for the opposition to that clause, but on the Third Reading of the Bill the Under-Secretary for the Home Department expressed the view that the needs of seaside and other resorts must be further considered. Since then inquiries have been made of local authorities at a large number of seaside resorts throughout the country and the Association of Health and Pleasure Resorts has also been consulted. As a result of the inquiries which the Home Office have made it is proposed to give power to local authorities at holiday resorts to exempt all or any of the transactions which are set out in the new Third Schedule which I shall be moving further on in the Bill.
It is not for the moment anticipated that every seaside resort will exempt all these transactions, but it is clear from inquiries that have been made that if hardships to visitors are to be avoided, the local authorities concerned must have power to permit the sale on Sunday of such of these commodities as would be, in their opinion, essential in the interests of visitors. I might add that the orders are subject to the provisions of Clause 4 and may not therefore be made unless two-thirds of each class of shopkeeper affected are in favour of the order. It is the view of the Government, and that after most careful inquiry, that nothing less than the provisions of the present clause and the new Third Schedule will
424
be sufficient to meet the needs of the visitors to holiday resorts. I hope my noble friend will see that the new clause which I propose is, if I may say so, somewhat better than his. I hope that he will withdraw his and accept mine, and that the noble Marquess will agree to mine as well.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new Clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: Might I just ask the Government a question which I think will shorten matters? We have heard a good deal about agreements with the noble Marquess of Dufferin and Ava and with Viscount Bertie on the wording, and with the Government, and with the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, and so on, but these very substantial Amendments seem to make a large difference to the Bill, and I venture to ask the noble Earl who is speaking for the Government the following question. When this Bill left another place we understood that it was more or less an agreed measure—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No; if I might interrupt the noble Lord, that is quite wrong. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department stated, not once or twice but again and again, that on arrival in this House a very large number of Amendments would have to be made; and, if I might mention it, I made that point myself twice upon the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, but that does not lessen the value of the question I want to put to the noble Earl. Have the unions concerned—who, after all, have great interest in this matter—been consulted, directly or indirectly, or through the usual channels, or by the Home Office officials? I refer to the Shop Assistants' Union and the National Union of Distributive Workers. It makes a difference, obviously, to my noble friends on this side. We try to work with our colleagues in another place in the same Party, who represent these unions which have many thousands of members who are intimately affected, and if we can be assured that they are in favour of these Amendments we shall be very glad to hear it, but we should like to have some information from the Government.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I may say in reply that ray noble friend the Marquess of Dufferin and Ava has been in communication with trade associations, and with a variety of associations dealing with particular classes of shops, who are in favour of this Bill and of these new Amendments which stand in ray name to-day.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl, and I should like also, if possible without any disrespect to him, to hear at first hand what happened when the noble Marquess made this explanation. We have heard of the trade associations; those are the shopkeepers; but I was speaking about the associations representing the shop assistants—for example, the Shop Assistants' Union and the National Union of Distributive Workers. There are several of them, representing many thousands of people who are intimately affected. I hope that the noble Marquess has not forgotten their existence, because, if so, I shall have to remind him quite forcibly of it in the course of this debate.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I should like to say this. As late as this morning I was in close consultation with all the promoters of the Bill, and although I did not ask them directly whether in fact the workers themselves have been consulted, as they have been consulted throughout hitherto, I have no doubt whatsoever that they would soon have told me if there had been the slightest disposition on the part of the various unions to object to these new-clauses, which are indeed vital to the well being of the Bill. Without them I do feel that the Bill would be a much worse Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: These Amendments have been on the Paper for some days and therefore I should have thought that the unions would have seen them, or perhaps that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would have pointed them out and asked whether the unions would agree to them.
LORD STRABOLGI: No, a number of them are new Amendments.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: The noble Earl—I cannot call him "in charge of the Bill," but running in double harness
426
with the noble Marquess—appeals to me not to move the new clause which stands in my name, and I give him the assurance that I will not move it, when we come to it. I have two reasons: first, because I think that his Amendment is better than mine, not generally speaking, but because he says that he deals with all holiday resorts, both inland and by the sea, and I only deal with seaside resorts, and I am sure that we want this Bill to deal with all holiday places, whether they are by the sea or inland. The second reason, which is even more important than that, is that, as I understand, Blackpool agrees with this Bill. I was a member of Parliament for Blackpool for fifteen years, and I am only too glad to be once more their servant.
LORD SNELL: I think I ought to say, in view of what has been said by the noble Marquess and by the noble Earl on the Front Bench, that we must preserve our freedom to intervene on the Report stage or on any other stage of this Bill as we think fit.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Procedure with respect to the making and revocation of orders.
4.—(1) The local authority shall, before making any order under the foregoing provisions of this Act, give public notice in the prescribed manner of their intention to make the order, specifying in the notice a period (not being less than the prescribed period) within which objections may be made to the making of the proposed order, and, if after taking into consideration any objections they have received, the local authority are satisfied that it is expedient to make the order and that the occupiers of not less than two-thirds in number of the shops to be affected by the order approve the order, they may make the order.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) after the first "objections," to insert "(which shall be in writing and signed by the person objecting thereto)."The noble Lord said: I think these objections should be in writing, because those who hold a contrary opinion could then see them and their fears that the decision of the local authority was not in accordance with them would be allayed.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, after (" objections ") insert (" (which shall be in writing and signed by the person objecting thereto) ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am afraid that, so far as the promoters are concerned, we could not accept this Amendment, because as far as I know, in the first place it is contrary to common practice in all previous Bills of the same kind. In such Bills objections have not had to be made in writing. As your Lordships know, in 99 per cent. of cases they will be in writing, but you may get an occasion when a man will have a conversation with the town clerk and ask him whether he really thinks that some action might not be taken. It is a little hard then to pin him down to put everything he says on paper.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I cannot quote from memory any particular case, but I am sure that there is a multitude of Acts in which objections have to be made in writing. At the same time I do not wish to delay the Bill and I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, after (" shops ") insert (" or classes of shops ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provision for Jewish traders.
5.—(1) Where any shop is occupied by persons of the Jewish religion or members of any other religious body regularly observing the Jewish Sabbath, then, notwithstanding anything in this or in any other Act, the shop may be kept open on Sunday until two o'clock on Sunday afternoon, so long as the shop continues to be occupied by persons of the Jewish religion or members of any such body as aforesaid and on condition that the following provisions are complied with (that is to say):—
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "five o'clock" for "two o'clock." The noble Lord said: This is a small but rather important point. I was very disappointed, when I perused the new Clause 5 which is being moved by the noble Earl on the Front Bench, to find two o'clock on Sunday maintained there in spite of my appeal on Second Reading that there should be a modification from two o'clock to five
428
o'clock. I should perhaps make it clear that I am speaking for myself alone so far as these Benches are concerned, but the matter seems to me one of elementary justice. The position is this: I hold no particular brief for people who have particular religious ideas, but I do believe in toleration. I believe one should be tolerant and try to give people a chance, if they do have peculiar religious beliefs, of exercising them, and if we leave two o'clock in this measure, it seems to me to be a rather undue hardship on orthodox Jewish believers, because they must, according to their faith, close their shops not only all of Saturday but from sunset on Friday. I am told—I have not worked it out—that the average time of sunset is somewhere about five o'clock, so that broadly speaking the orthodox Jewish trader has got to close from five o'clock on Friday and through the whole of Saturday, and in return for these many hours of lost trade he is only allowed under the Bill to keep open until two o'clock on Sunday.
There are two factors in this. One is that, according to the habits of the people, Sunday is a day when many people stay in bed, although I was glad to read that a great many members of your Lordships' House get up and go to church, or some of them do. A large number, however, do not follow that excellent example, but stay in bed. Consequently, if they wish to shop on Sunday they must get up early, which is very trying for them if the shops close at two o'clock. Therefore it would be an advantage to the consumers if the shops were open until a little later on Sunday. Secondly, it is the fact that the vast majority of the trade on any day is done in the later part of the day, rather than in the earlier. I refer particularly to the type of shop referred to here. It is calculated that eighty per cent. of the shopping is done in the later part of the day, and only twenty per cent. in the earlier part, so that very heavy loss is involved to those who have these orthodox beliefs if they have to close at two o'clock. For these reasons I want to move that five o'clock shall be substituted for two o'clock. Should the sense of justice which is inherent in the hearts of many members of your Lordships' House lead you to accept this Amendment and substitute five o'clock for two o'clock, that would involve that in

429
the new clause which is going to be moved by the noble Earl opposite five o'clock should be substituted for two o'clock. This Amendment would be of no effect if you merely insert it in a clause which is going to be relegated to the scrap-heap.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out (" two ") and insert (" five ").—(Lord Marley.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I apologise for speaking again, but I will not be very long. I do most whole-heartedly, and almost passionately, support this extension from two o'clock to five o'clock. It seems to me that it would be vindictive to penalise the Jewish trader because of his religious belief, and because he sticks to the religion of his fathers. Already he carries a heavy burden because, of his religious belief, and the least we can do is not to add to that burden, which we should do unless this Amendment were passed. I do beg your Lordships to support the Amendment which has been so clearly moved, and I trust that some of the noble Lords whom I see here, who are connected with the Jewish faith and religion, will give us their views, and that it will not be left only to Lord Marley and myself to voice our strong feelings in this matter.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I feel, as a Jew, that I have to express my gratitude to the noble Lords who have just spoken for taking up the cause of the Jewish traders who are so much affected by this Bill. Lord Marley has told your Lordships that the average time of sunset, at which orthodox Jews have to close their shops on Friday, is five o'clock. In winter time sunset is as early as half-past three, and having regard to the hours which the Jewish trader loses it does not seem to me, or to those who have considered this question, that being allowed to keep open until two o'clock is a sufficient recompense. The orthodox Jewish trader also closes on thirteen days in the year, on Jewish holidays; therefore he has still more lost trading time to make up, and at present he can only trade till eight o'clock. Those Jewish representatives who have been in consultation with the promoters of the Bill have given their reasons for saying that the hours on Sunday should be extended to five o'clock, but the promoters of the Bill have not, as yet, given them any reason for not
430
accepting five o'clock. They have been merely met with a blank refusal on the part of the promoters. I would finally like to say to jour Lordships that the Jewish trader, if this Bill is passed and he is compelled to close on Sundays at two o'clock, will have only two alternatives. The small trader will either have to go out of business or he will have to break his Jewish Sabbath and trade on the Sabbath and close on the Sunday. The promoters of the Bill are anxious to protect the Christian Sunday, but they will not let the Jewish trader have his Sabbath protected in the same way.
THE MARQUESS OK DUFFERIN AND AVA: I feel I must say a few words to explain why the promoters of the Bill do not feel that it is possible to extend the hours of Jewish trading on Sunday from two o'clock. Lord Marley, Lord Mount Temple and Lord Swaythling have made a very passionate plea for the Jewish trader. Of course, as Lord Marley hinted, he knows he is the only just man in his Party, or practically so, so far as this clause is concerned. I think any one who heard my speech on the Second Reading will acquit me of any desire to discriminate against Jews as such. I was very careful to say that I wished to retain the tolerance that we have always had in these matters. No clause in the Bill has given me more cause for heart-searching than this clause and the proposed Amendment, but I have been finally forced into the belief that it is necessary to reject the Amendment, for two reasons.
The first is that a great deal has been made of the hardship which the orthodox Jew will suffer under the clause as it at present stands. It is true that the orthodox Jew will only be allowed to trade until two o'clock on Sunday, but during that time he will have a monopoly. That is a tremendous advantage. In many districts he will be the only trader with a shop open in that district. I think that that is a fair recompense for many of the hours that he may lose under the Bill. The second reason that has forced me to this conclusion is a delicate one, and I do not like at all having to say it in this House, but it must be said. The Jew who does not live within a Jewish community would, under this proposed Amendment, be able to be open all Sunday till five o'clock. I suggest to your Lordships that in the present

431
state of feeling in London that would be very unwise. I am very sorry to have to say that, but I do think we must all admit—those of us who know boys' clubs in the East End of London and from many other sources of information—that there is a feeling against Jews at the present moment, which we must stop if we possibly can, and I believe that if this Amendment were passed you would accentuate it greatly. I believe that if you passed this Amendment you would really have great feeling against the Jews. From the Jewish point of view itself, I believe most firmly that this Amendment ought to be rejected.
Finally, I would like to say that if this Amendment is passed you will have to have a consequential Amendment in Clause 6. There are only 5,000 orthodox Jews now trading all over England. Those 5,000, or the number of them who live in London, will have the power of extending the market hours in London under Clause 6 till five o'clock in the evening. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Marley, to make the very justifiable debating point that it is at the end of the day that most trading is done, but no one knows better than he that what it really means is that it is in the last hour before closing that the trading is done; and if your Lordships will take the trouble to go down to the markets in London you will find, I am informed, that in practice to-day they close between one and two o'clock, when you get a great efflux of people away from them, having done their business. And, in fact, the scavengers in the London markets actually begin their work about half-past one. It does seem to me that if you pass this Amendment you are simply laying yourselves open to the charge of having quite unnecessarily kept their markets open for an extra three hours till five o'clock, keeping the scavengers up till half-past six. I urge your Lordships on these three considerations not to let your sense of compassion run away with you.
And I will say this also, that time is pressing already in this Session. This Amendment, or an Amendment very like it, was so decisively opposed by the House of Commons that I do not think that it was even moved, and I do not think that there is the slightest chance of getting it through another place without
432
the bitterest struggle, which in practice would mean the end of the Bill, which even the mover of the Amendment thinks, at any rate in principle, is a good one.
LORD MARLEY: I am very disappointed with the reply of the noble Marquess, because I really do not think he has made his points at all well. If, in fact, the maximum trade is in the last hour, and we are only working up till five o'clock, then in point of fact the amount of trade actually done in the extra time will not be sufficient to cause resentment at the shops' being open till five o'clock. If, in fact, the trade is done, say, from seven to eight at night—
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am talking of people seeing the Jewish shops open all day on Sunday. That is what will cause resentment.
LORD MARLEY: Yes, but we must have a reason for resentment. Surely, you cannot pile one injustice on another because the Jewish people are suffering the unjust attacks of Fascist organisations in this country. Let us be clear about this. Either there is or there is not an economic cause for this unjust attack on the Jewish people. If there is an economic cause, we are not making the economic cause worse by keeping the shops open now till five o'clock, when the maximum trade is done between seven and eight at night. Therefore, there is no economic cause for this. Therefore, we are merely denying common justice to the orthodox Jewish traders because there have been allowed to develop in this country Fascist attacks on the Jewish people, from which they have not been adequately protected. Either they have been protected or they have not. If they have been protected, and if they will be protected, the point made by the noble Marquess is an unreal one; and if they have not been protected they ought to have been protected, and I hope they will be in the future.
With regard to the question of time pressing I do not think there is much in that, for this reason, that already there are so many Amendments to this Bill that it has got to have a considerable discussion in another place when it goes back there, and one small addition is hardly likely to endanger the Bill more

433
than the already existing Amendments. I am sorry that the noble Marquess has not seen fit to accept an Amendment that I really think is a just one, and I am going to ask the House to divide on it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I add a word on behalf of the Government on this point? I think that on Second Beading I did point out to your Lordships that the Bill as originally introduced provided that the Jewish shops should be closed at one o'clock on Sunday. After that an Amendment was moved which made the time two o'clock. My recollection is that a further Amendment was discussed to extend that time to six in the evening, and finally it was negatived by a very large majority. I am not sure whether it would be advisable for your Lordships to disagree with another place on that particular Amendment, because I am advised that the opinion against increasing these hours was very considerable. I think it necessary to say that, but at the same time I am not prepared to enter into any discussion as to whether the Jews are protected or not protected, for that appears to me to be quite outside the scope of the Bill.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 5 and insert:
Special provisions for persons observing the Jewish Sabbath.
" .—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the occupier of any shop who
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I put this to your Lordships? The noble Earl has just said that whether the Jews are popular or unpopular that is outside the scope of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I never said anything about popular or unpopular, if my noble friend will forgive me.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The point was whether they wore protected or not.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I accept the correction. But I cannot think that your Lordships would refrain from voting for an Amendment if you thought it just, simply because the people who are going to be helped by it are said to be unpopular at the present moment—because that was the argument of the noble Marquess. He said that if we give them extended facilities to trade till five o'clock there may be racial bad feeling. If it is right we ought to do it, and if it is wrong we ought not to be influenced by such an argument.
On Question, Whether the word "two" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Midleton, E.

Lamington, L.

Munster, E.

Moyne, L.

Halifax, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Plymouth, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Argyll, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Phillimore, L.

Elibank, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M. [Teller.]

Hambleden, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Dufferin and Ava, M. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Annaly, L.

Saltoun, L.

Zetland, M.

Dickinson, L.

Seaton, L.

Doverdale, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lindsay, E.

Elton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lucan, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Lawrence, L.

Clwyd, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Mount Temple, L. [Teller.]

Strafford, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Stanmore, L.

Swaythling, L.

is a person of the Jewish religion shall be entitled, upon making to the local authority an application in accordance with the provisions of this section, to have the shop registered under this section by the local authority, and so long as the shop is so registered then—

(a) the shop shall be closed for all purposes connected with trade or business on Saturday; and

435

(b) the provisions of this Act requiring the shop to be closed for the serving of customers on Sunday shall not apply until two o'clock in the afternoon; and

(c) there shall be kept conspiciously placed in the shop a notice stating that it will be closed on Saturday and, if the shop will be open for the serving of customers on Sunday after two o'clock in the afternoon for the purposes of any transaction for which it is permitted under this Act to be so open, specifying the hours during which and the purposes for which it will be so open.

(2) Any application for the registration of a shop under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be accompanied—

(a) by a statutory declaration made by the occupier of the shop specifying the name of the religious body of which he is a member, and declaring that he conscientiously objects on religious grounds to carrying on trade or business on the Jewish Sabbath; and

(b) by such further statutory or other declarations and certificates, if any, made by such persons, and in such form, as may be prescribed.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a shop occupied by a partnership or company shall be deemed to be occupied by a person of the Jewish religion if not less than half the number of partners or of the directors, as the case may be, are persons of that religion, but not otherwise; and such a shop shall not be registered under this section unless the statutory declaration required by paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection is made by at least half the number of partners or directors and specifies the names and addresses of all the other partners or directors.
(4) If for the purpose of procuring the registration of any shop under this section any person knowingly or recklessly makes an untrue statement or untrue representation he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(5) So long as a shop is registered under this section—

(a) no other shop occupied by the same occupier shall be kept open for any purpose connected with trade or business on Saturday;

(b) no person by whom the statutory-declaration aforesaid has been made in connection with the application for the registration of the shop shall be employed or engaged on the Jewish Sabbath about the business of any shop or shall so employ, or be directly concerned in the control or management of any partnership or company which so employs, any person.

(6) Where any person is convicted of an offence under this section the court may, in addition to any other penalty, order the registration of any shops occupied by him
436
or by any partnership or company in the control or management of which he is directly concerned to be revoked:
Provided that the court shall not order the registration of any shop not occupied by the person convicted to be revoked except after affording an opportunity to the occupier to appear and be heard.
(7) If upon representations made to them it appears to the local authority that there is reason to believe—

(a) that the occupier of any shop registered under this section is not a person of the Jewish religion;

(b) that a conscientious objection on religious grounds to carrying on business on the Jewish Sabbath is not genuinely held by the occupier of the shop, or in the case of a shop occupied by a partnership or company by at least one-half of the number of partners or of the directors, as the case may be;

the local authority may furnish particulars of the case to such tribunal as may, after consultation with the London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews, be prescribed, and if that tribunal, after considering the case in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed report to the local authority that in their opinion the occupier of the shop is not a person of the Jewish religion or that such a conscientious objection is not so held as aforesaid, the local authority shall revoke the registration of the shop, and upon the revocation thereof the registration under this section of all other shops occupied by the same occupier, whether in the area of that local authority or elsewhere, shall be deemed to be also revoked.
(8) In the event of any change in the occupation of a shop registered under this section it shall be the duty of the person who becomes the occupier to serve on the local authority notice of the change, and in the event of any change in any partnership or among the directors of any company by which such a shop is occupied, it shall be the duty of the partnership, or of the company, as the case may be, to serve on the local authority a notice giving particulars of the change, and, whether or not such a notice is served, the registration of the shop shall, upon the expiration of a period of fourteen days from the date on which the change occurred, be deemed to be cancelled, unless within that period, or within such further time as may be allowed by the local authority, a fresh application under this section is made in respect of the shop:
Provided that, where such a fresh application is made by reason of a change in any partnership or among the directors of any company by which the shop is occupied, the local authority may dispense with the statutory or other declaration or certificates required by paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and by subsection (3) of this section in the case of any person who has made such a declaration in connection with a former application in respect of the shop.
(9) The registration of any shop under this section shall be cancelled upon application in that behalf being made to the local authority by the occupier of the shop but shall not be so cancelled during the period of twelve months from the date on which an application for registration of the shop was last made.
(10) Where an application is made to a local authority in accordance with the pro visions of this section for the registration of a shop under this section—

(a) the local authority shall refuse to register the shop if the registration of that shop has been revoked or has been cancelled under the last foregoing subsection while the shop was in the occupation of the applicant; and

(b) the local authority may refuse so to register the shop if the registration of that shop or of any other shop occupied or formerly occupied by the applicant, or by any partnership or company of which he was a partner or director, has been revoked or cancelled.

(11) Where the local authority refuse to register a shop in accordance with the pro visions of paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection, they shall serve notice of their refusal upon the applicant, and, if the applicant is aggrieved by such refusal, he may, within twenty-one days of the date when the notice was so served upon him, appeal against such refusal to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division in which the shop is situated, and the appellant or the local authority, if aggrieved by the order made by the court of summary jurisdiction, may appeal against that order to quarter sessions.
(12) This section shall apply to persons who are members of any religious body regularly observing the Jewish Sabbath as it applies to persons of the Jewish religion, and references therein to persons of the Jewish religion shall be construed accordingly as including any person who is a member of such a body, and in the application of this section to such persons this section shall have effect as if for the reference therein to the London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews there were substituted a reference to such body as appears to the Secretary of State to represent such persons.
(13) As respects any shop which is for the time being registered under this section the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1934, shall have effect subject to the following modifications (that is to say)—

(a) subsection (1) of Section one and subsection (1) of Section four of the Shops Act, 1912, shall have effect as if for references therein to week-days there were substituted references to week-days other than Saturdays; and

(b) subsection (2) of the said Section four shall have effect as if the word ' Friday ' were substituted for the word ' Saturday ' wherever the last-mentioned word occurs."

The noble Earl said: This clause takes the place of the existing Clause 5, and it contains the special provisions for persons observing the Jewish faith. As I said before the House resolved itself into Committee, I thought it would be for the convenience of your Lordships that I should put a new clause in the Bill rather than propose a large number of Amendments to the existing clause. It will be seen that the general effect of the Amendments which I have proposed to this clause is to clarify its provisions, improve its machinery, and ensure that the privilege of Sunday opening is limited to those people for whom the clause was intended—namely, orthodox Jews. I should like to make it quite clear, before explaining the provisions of the new clause, that the main purpose of the clause as passed by another place remains undisturbed. A person who observes the Jewish Sabbath will be permitted to remain open until two o'clock on Sunday afternoon, provided he keeps his shop closed for all purposes during the whole of Saturday and provided, furthermore, that he complies with the restrictions contained in this clause.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the principal parts of this new clause and answer ultimately any questions which your Lordships may be prepared to ask. The main difference between the new clause and the existing clause is with regard to subsection (1), which has been amended to provide for a system of registration by the local authority of shops which keep open under the clause. This is thought to be a more convenient and more effective method than the mere receipt of notices as provided by the existing clause. Subsection (7) of the new clause contains an entirely new provision which I think requires some explanation. Under this subsection power is given to the local authority, if they have reason to believe that a person opening on Sunday under the clause has not a genuine conscientious objection to carrying on business on the Jewish Sabbath, to refer the case to a tribunal which is to be set up after consultation with the Jewish Board of Deputies. If that tribunal finds that the shopkeeper concerned does not genuinely hold a conscientious objection, the local authority have to revoke the registration of the shop, which will thereafter have to close on Sunday. The object of this

439
provision is to deal with cases of evasion which do not amount to actual breaches of the clause.
I shall quote your Lordships an example. It has been found under the Hairdressers' Act, 1930, which contains an exemption for Jewish hairdressers, that certain Jewish hairdressers with two shops have kept one open on Sunday and the other on Saturday by means of handing over one of the shops to a person who appears to be a separate occupier but is, in fact, purely a nominee, usually a relative of the original owner. It was considered impossible so to frame the clause as to cover specifically evasions of this character. Accordingly the assistance of the Jewish Board of Deputies has been elicited. They were naturally anxious that the privileges accorded by this clause should be granted only to the orthodox Jews for whom they were intended. I do not know whether there is any other particular point which I can draw the Committee's attention to in this new clause, but it docs appear to the Government as it now stands to provide a workable machinery and to contain the necessary safeguards against evasions. I hope your Lordships will agree to the clause and pass it in place of the existing clause of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: To this new clause your Lordships will see that the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has certain Amendments which are put down on page 9. I think the procedure is that these Amendments should be discussed first and put, and then the clause, as amended or not amended, should be put afterwards.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask the Lord Chairman on a point of order whether it would not be better to get rid of the existing clause first and then move the new clause?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Standing Orders of your Lordships' House say that:
"If Amendments are moved to a proposed Amendment, such Amendments are dealt with in the order in which they stand in the Paper, in the same manner as if they were original questions, until all are disposed of; then the original Amendment is dealt with."
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, to leave out "not less than half the number" and insert "the majority." The noble Viscount said: If your Lordships will look at page 5 of the Amendments, you will see that it reads:
"For the purposes of this section, a shop occupied by a partnership or company shall be deemed to be occupied by a person of the Jewish religion if not less than half the number of partners or of the directors, as the case may be, are persons of that religion, but not otherwise."
In effect, that is that if half the number of directors are of the Jewish persuasion they can, notwithstanding the religious scruples of the other half, come under this clause. This country is not Palestine. I think it is rather a tall order that the half consisting of Jewish directors should have this power over the non-Jewish directors. For that reason I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
In line 3 of subsection (3) of the proposed new clause leave out (" not less than half the number ") and insert (" the majority ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I cannot agree altogether with everything that the noble Viscount has said in moving this Amendment, but on the whole I think I am prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed new clause agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The next Amendment in my name is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
In line 8 of subsection 3 of the proposed new clause, leave out (" at least half the number ") and insert (" the majority ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment to the proposed new clause agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5) of the proposed new clause, after "directly," to insert "or indirectly." The noble Viscount said: If your Lordships do not insert these words "or indirectly" after the word "directly" it will be extremely easy to drive not only a proverbial four-in-hand through the Bill but even the "Queen

441
Mary," because it would be very easy indeed for a person to trade in his own name and then have a company with dummy directors holding all the shares. We had this question of directly or indirectly discussed on the Electricity Bill, I think, when the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was good enough to put in an Amendment which did make the Bill watertight. I hope my noble friend Lord Dufferin will see his way to accept this Amendment, otherwise the clause will be futile.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
In line 11 of subsection (5) of the proposed new clause, after (" directly ") insert (" or indirectly ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am sorry that I for one cannot sec my way to accept this Amendment. It appears to me that it makes the scope of the clause far too wide. "Indirectly" in this connection is a word of almost indefinite meaning. I would like to point out that under subsection (7) the Jews themselves have made a very considerable concession in so far as the setting up of this authoritative tribunal is concerned, to decide whether a man is in fact a genuine professing Jew or whether he is using the cloak of his religion to cover a very wrong method of dealing—that is to say, if he is really directly interested in some other business which is making money on Sunday. In those circumstances, and in view of the concession that the Jews themselves have made, I hope that your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It will be unnecessary for your Lordships to reject this Amendment because I do not mean to press it, but I hope that between now and Report stage I may be able to come to some terms with my noble friends and move an Amendment perhaps at that stage.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not move the next Amendment in my name as it is connected with the one which I have withdrawn, but I beg to move the last one in my name which is consequential.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
442
In line 5 of paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of the proposed new clause, leave out (" at least one half ") and insert (" the majority ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD STRABOLGI: With regard to this voluminous clause I may say that since the last omnibus clause was moved so adequately by the noble Earl and his noble assistant—when I rose for my noble friend Lord Snell to ask the question whether the unions concerned had been consulted—I have repaired the broken liaison that seemed to exist perhaps on both sides of the House. After consultation with my honourable friend in another place Mr, Rhys Davies, who takes a special interest in the Shop Assistants' Union, and also after having had the privilege of a conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs in the presence of the same Mr. Rhys Davies, I understand that the unions have been consulted—not only the trade associations and the local authorities, and the Association of Health and Pleasure Resorts, but the actual workers' unions also have been consulted. I am very glad to hear it. That removes our doubts and we are very glad that the Bill has been knocked into shape by the Home Office.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I do not want to detain your Lordships long, but the noble Earl who moved this new clause mentioned the evasions that have been going on under the Hairdressers' Act. I should like to say that the Jewish community themselves deprecate to the full all the evasions that have taken place under that Act, and they have been in touch with the Home Office to try to prevent any such evasions or anything of the sort occurring under the present Bill.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Special provisions for London.
6.—(1) If the common council of the City of London or the London County Council are satisfied that any part of their respective areas—
(b) is a district, being a district within the metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, or Stepney, in which it was customary before the said date for

443
the majority of the shops in the district to be kept open on Sunday and that, having regard to the character and habits of the population in the district, the application of the provisions of this Act requiring shops to be closed on Sunday would cause undue hardship,
they may, by order made in accordance with the provisions of this section, authorise such shops or classes of shops as may be specified in the order, being shops other than bakers', confectioners', hairdressers' and barbers' shops, situated in the district or in such parts of the district as may be so specified to be open for the serving of customers on Sunday until two o'clock on Sunday afternoon subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned.
(2) Any order made under this section authorising shops to be kept open for the serving of customers on Sunday shall fix a week-day upon which such shops must be closed (in this section referred to as "the closing day"), and may fix different days for different classes of shops, and the occupier of a shop who intends to keep open the shop on Sunday in pursuance of the order shall give notice in writing to the common council or to the London County Council, as the case may be, of his intention so to do and he shall not keep open the shop on Sunday unless such notice has been given and the shop has been closed on the closing day in the preceding week:
Provided that—
(b) where the closing day so fixed is a day other than Saturday the order shall provide for enabling Saturday to be substituted as the closing day as respects any shop.
(4) The common council or the London County Council shall….
Provided that the common council of the City of London or the London County Council shall not make an order applying to any district referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section unless they are satisfied that the occupiers of not less than two-thirds in number of the shops to be affected by the order approve the order.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The Amendment standing in my name to the beginning of the clause is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out (" common council ") and insert (" Common Council ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "within," to insert "the City of London or". The noble Earl said: The object
444
of this Amendment is to enable the Common Council of the City of London to make an order for a district in the City of London in which it is at present customary for shops to keep open on Sunday. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, after (" within ") insert (" the City of London or ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "other than bakers', confectioners', hairdressers', and barbers' shops." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to enable a local authority to permit the Sunday opening up to two p.m. of non-Jewish as well as Jewish shops in certain districts in London where it is at present customary to hold Sunday street markets and in districts like Whitechapel where, as your Lordships know, there is a predominance of the Jewish element. During the passage of the Bill in another place, Amendments were inserted to exclude bakers', confectioners', hairdressers' and barbers' shops from the operation of the clause. The Amendments were moved on behalf of the shopkeepers and employees in the trades concerned who object to any proposal to open non-Jewish shops on Sunday. However, to exclude any classes of shops from the operation of the clause might prove a source of serious grievance to the occupiers concerned, if they found that their Jewish competitors were obtaining the monopoly of Sunday trading.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, leave out from ("shops") to the end of line 13.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I am advised by those who know that the traders concerned and also other traders have no fear whatever of competition. Not only that, but even if there is competition both employers and employees have worked so hard in the past in order that they may have Sunday free from trading that they are very anxious that the Amendment which was passed in another place with regard to bakers should be retained and that other traders—grocers, provision dealers, corn dealers and domestic store keepers—should be inserted in the clause. The traders concerned are unanimous in their

445
desire to be dealt with in this way in Clause 6. When they specially ask not to be allowed to trade on Sundays it does seem rather a large order to tell them that they are not to have the protection for which they ask and for which they have been working for many years. As your Lordships know there are already special orders under the Shops Act with regard to hairdressers and others. I think it would be a mistake that these traders should not be allowed to have their existing free Sunday continued even though they are in special districts. Therefore I very much hope that the noble Earl will not persist in this Amendment and that the noble Marquess will be able to accept the Amendment in my name which is next on the paper.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am afraid that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment which the noble Marquess has on the paper. So far as I can make out it is an unnecessary Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, is to move an Amendment in which precisely the conditions that the noble Marquess desires for grocers and provision merchants will be given to the keepers of any class of shops where the local authority is satisfied that the majority desire it. I suggest therefore that it is quite unnecessary to make a special exception of these particular trades and that it is far better to have a comprehensive Amendment covering every eventuality.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1) before "bakers…shops," to insert "grocers, provision dealers, corn dealers, domestic store keepers." The noble Marquess said: I think I must move this Amendment in order to say that the traders concerned are not satisfied with the Amendment which appears on the paper in the name of the noble Earl on the Front Bench. They do not think they have proper protection under that Amendment. I feel bound to move this Amendment because the correspondence which I have had during the last fortnight shows that those, concerned are very anxious about this matter. It seems very strange that traders who wish to keep closed on Sundays should be told—in so many words almost—that they are not to get protection in these special districts.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, after (" than ") insert (" grocers, provision dealers, corn dealers, domestic storekeepers ").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I can only repeat what I said before that the point made by the noble Marquess is entirely covered by a subsequent Amendment. If there is this unanimous desire, as the noble Marquess says. I think it very remarkable that he is not prepared to put it to the test of the majority vote as the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Munster proposes. Therefore I would urge him to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
" Provided that before making an order applying to any district referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection the council shall take steps to ascertain the wishes of the occupiers of such shops as appear to them to be likely to be affected, and if they are satisfied that a majority of the occupiers of any class of such shops are opposed to the making of the order the council shall exclude that class of shops from the operation of the order."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on the provisions to which your Lordships have just agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, leave out (" common council ") and insert (" Common Council of the City of London ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "on" ["on the closing day"] and insert "during the whole of." The noble Viscount said: This is really very little more than drafting. It is intended to make it clear that the shops must be closed during the whole of the day.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out (" on ") and insert (" during the whole of ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May we have some light and leading on these Amendments from whoever is in charge of the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I thought that I had spoken far too much, and I feel sure the noble Earl will think that he also has spoken too much.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Surely every member of the Committee is entitled to have the Amendments explained to him?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I thought I had explained the Amendment to the noble Lord. If he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow I am sure he will find that I have done so.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: What does the noble Viscount mean by saying that shops shall be closed the whole of the day? That is all he told us.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: What I said was that it would make it clearer that the shops had to be closed during the whole of the day, whereas the word "on" is a little ambiguous. It might mean only a part of the day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 5, leave out (" common council ") and insert (" Common Council of the City of London ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: This is drafting, too.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 16, leave out (" common council ") and insert (" Common Council of the City of London ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, leave out (" common council ") and insert (" Common Council of the City of London ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment, to omit the proviso in subsection (4), is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 35 to 41.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Provisions as to delivery of goods.
7. It shall not be lawful to dispatch any goods from a shop, or to deliver any goods so dispatched, at any time when under the provisions of this Act a customer could not be served with those goods in that shop:
Provided that……
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out all words down to and including "dispatch" and insert "Goods sold retail to a customer shall not be delivered or despatched for delivery from a shop." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment, but it makes it clear that the prohibition of delivery applies only to goods sold retail and does not affect wholesale deliveries. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, leave out from the beginning to (" at ") in line 2 and insert (" Goods sold retail to a customer shall not be delivered or dispatched for delivery from a shop ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I inquire on that point whether it covers goods sold retail not from a shop but, say, from a stand by the roadside? It seems to me essential that you should be able to deliver from a roadside stand as soon as the purchase is made. And what exactly does the word "delivery" mean? Does taking something from a stand to a car which may be standing on the opposite side of, perhaps, an arterial road constitute delivery? Perhaps the noble Earl or the noble Marquess would look into these points between now and Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I must apologise; I did not expect to be asked that particular question, I must confess, and I should be very much obliged if I could be given a little notice. As a matter of fact, however, I think that the noble Lord would find that his point is not a substantial one; but, as he said, I will look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Miscellaneous savings.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, any person carrying on the business of a hairdresser or barber may, at any time, for the purposes of that business attend any person—

(a) in any place, if that person is unable, by reason of bodily or mental infirmity, to go to the place where such business as aforesaid is carried on; or

(b) in any hotel or club, if that person is resident therein.

(5) This Act shall not apply to any shop, or to the carrying on of any trade or business, in any sea-going ship.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line l6 leave out from (" goods ") to (" to ") in line 19.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (4), after "carrying on," to insert "or employed in." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to make it clear that the exemptions provided in subsection (4) for hairdressers and barbers, whereby they are permitted to attend certain persons on Sunday, apply to employees as well as to the master barbers.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 41, after (" on ") insert (" or employed in ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 8, leave out from (" any ") to (" sea-going ") in line 9.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Provisions respecting shop assistants.
(iii) to any person employed in connection with the sale or distribution of milk and other farm produce; or
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, leave out (" in ") and insert (" about the business of ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, after (" person ") insert (" so ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, leave out from (" holiday ") to (" and ") in line 23 and insert (" on a day other than that of his statutory half holiday, if any,").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 24, after the second (" employed ") insert (" about the business of a shop ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 27, after (" person ") insert ("so").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in proviso (iii) in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "employed" and insert "wholly or mainly as a milk roundsman." The noble Earl said: In the Report stage of this Bill in another place an Amendment was moved to exclude from the provisions relating to compensatory holidays any person employed in connection with the sale or distribution of milk or other farm produce. It was pointed out at that time that the Amendment was too wide in its terms, and that as it stood it would have exempted not only milk roundsmen, in whose interests the Amendment was tabled, but also persons employed in dairies, grocers' and greengrocers' shops. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 4, leave out from (" employed ") to (" or ") in line 6 and insert (" wholly or mainly as a milk roundsman ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, after (" this ") insert (" and the next following ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 36, leave out from ("employed") to ("notwithstanding") in line 37.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 39, leave out from the beginning to ("half-past") in line 42 and insert:
("(b) in relation to any person employed about the business of a shop the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say, 'whole holiday' means a day on which that person is not employed about the business of that shop; 'statutory half holiday' means a day on which under Section one of the Shops Act, 1912, he is not employed about the business of that shop after half-past one o'clock in the afternoon; 'half holiday' means a day on which he is either not employed before, or not employed after").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Notices]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, leave out (" in ") and insert (" about the business of ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Leave out lines 14 to 16.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:
Extension of provisions of this Act to retail trading elsewhere than in shops.
". Subject as hereinafter provided, the provisions of this Act shall extend to any
452
place where any retail trade or business is carried on as if that place were a shop, and as if in relation to any such place the person by whom the retail trade or business is carried on were the occupier of a shop:
Provided that—

(a) the following provisions of this Act shall extend only to shops, that is to say, those provisions of Section six which relate to the approval by occupiers of shops of orders made under those sections, the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Section seven and the provisions of paragraph (a) of Section twelve;

(b) the provisions of Section eleven of this Act shall in relation to any place not being a shop apply only to persons wholly or mainly employed in connection with the retail trade or business carried on therein;

(c) the provisions of Section one of this Act shall, as applied by this section, have effect as if there were included in the First Schedule to this Act the sale by fishermen of freshly caught fish (including shell-fish), and the sale at a farm, smallholding, allotment or similar place, of fresh produce produced thereon."

The noble Earl said: The whole of this clause is mainly of a drafting nature, and I do not think it is really necessary for me to explain the position fully to your Lordships unless the explanation is particularly required. It deals with a variety of matters, and perhaps, when the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, moves the new clause which he has following mine, I may then be able to answer some of the questions which may be put to me. As it stands now, the clause is principally drafting.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Amendment is in exactly the same words as paragraph (c) of the noble Earl's, with a single exception: that I leave out the word "fresh" before the word "produce," and I do so for the following reason. The noble Earl is, I think, equally concerned with me to protect the interests of the smallholder, the allotment-holder and the Federation of Women's Institutes, which has particularly asked me to bring this point forward. I think the noble Earl sincerely desires to protect their interests. These people have no regular market except the market which passes their door—motorists, mainly on Saturdays and Sundays. Many of these people live at a great distance from any market town. Their business is so small that they cannot

453
afford to hire delivery vans and get their stuff taken to town; their only chance to realise a profit on what they grow on their own premises is to sell it at the door. The words "fresh produce" would prevent these people selling, I am told, honey, jam, fresh butter, cooked and dressed poultry, and eggs, and it is particularly those items with which the Federation of Women's Institutes is concerned.
How the noble Earl or the noble Marquess is going to say whether honey is or is not "fresh produce" I am at a loss to understand. If the bees have just made the honey and it is snatched from them and offered to the passing motorist, I suppose it is "fresh produce"; on the other hand, if they made it a month ago, possibly it is not "fresh produce." I do not know; I know that a fresh egg is fresh for a good many days according to the terms commonly employed, so I suppose my clients can sell a technically "fresh" egg although it is not necessarily an egg that the noble Marquess might consider "fresh" if he had it on his breakfast-table. In fact it seems to me that the real clear division that we want is the division between what is produced on the smallholding and what is not produced on the smallholding. I do not ask for anything to be included in the exemption except what is actually produced on the smallholding, and I think, that being a very reasonable request, the noble Marquess should accept my Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At end insert:
(". The provisions of Section one of this Act shall, as applied by this section, have effect as if there were included in the First Schedule to this Act the sale by fishermen of freshly caught fish (including shell-fish), and the sale at a farm, smallholding, allotment or similar place, of produce produced thereon.")—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I strongly support my noble friend in the Amendment standing in his name after the present one? He has told you all about the difficulties of honey; whether it is "fresh" or whether it is not; but I am looking further. If you leave in this word "fresh," probably there will be litigation; probably it will go right up to the House of Lords to decide whether honey is "fresh" within the meaning of this Bill or whether it is not. What harm can it do to allow a smallholder
454
or a farmer to sell his produce? It seems to me ridiculous not to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I have listened with great interest to Lord Mount Temple and Lord Phillimore, and I am afraid they have not impressed me or the noble Marquess who sits behind me.
A NOBLE LORD: How do you know that?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Because he told me. Objection has been raised to an exemption of this character on the grounds that certain small holders with roadside stalls actually buy their goods from wholesalers, and, for example, Sell New Zealand eggs.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I beg the noble Earl's pardon for interrupting, but the words of the Amendment are: "produce produced thereon."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That does not necessarily mean to say that they are fresh.
LORD PHILLIMORE: He cannot sell New Zealand produce and say it was "produced thereon."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am advised that the way the Amendment is drafted would lead to considerable trouble, and there would be doubt constantly raised as to whether the goods sold were "produce produced thereon".
LORD ELTISLEY: I hope that if necessary this Amendment will be pressed to a Division. I regard it as the key-point of the Bill. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than for this trade to be snatched from the small producer, whose main difficulty is to market the produce produced on his holding, and unless the promoters of the Bill are good enough to give this matter favourable consideration I think it is necessary that we should divide upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: There is such difference of information on the point that it would be extremely difficult to decide whether a man was not being rather clever in buying a lot of stuff from a wholesaler, putting it in his cottage, dressing it up, and selling it as his own produce. That was the object of putting in the word

455
"fresh." I think it is a matter, however, which might be gone into, and possibly on Report we could devise some little more satisfactory form of wording than that which the noble Lord has produced. I doubt very much whether the words "produce produced thereon" cover poultry and eggs.
LORD MOYNE: This leaves me rather confused. The noble Marquess is arguing in favour of putting in the word "fresh" as a security against fraud. I think it is a very doubtful security. If people set about defrauding the consumer they will surely be able to get fresh produce just as easily as New Zealand. I think the point is so small and petty, and so likely to cause litigation and trouble, that the promoters would do well to meet the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I think the sense of the House is so clear that I ought to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment, agreed to.
On Question, proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Enforcement]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 19, leave out from ("shop") to ("shall") in line 20.
Page 11, line 37, leave out from ("against") to ("the") in line 38 and insert (" any of the following enactments, namely—

(a) the Act of the twenty-seventh year of His late Majesty King Henry the sixth, chapter Five (which restricts the holding of fairs and markets on certain days); or

(b) ")

Page 11, line 42, at end insert ("; or
(c) the Sunday Observance Act, 1677.")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Extension of provisions of this Act to retail trading elsewhere than in shops]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 12. The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 12.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Interpretation]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert "The expression 'horse' has the same meaning as in the Army Act, 1881." The noble Viscount said: I can hardly call this a consequential Amendment, but it precedes one which is on page 17 of the Amendment Paper to permit the sale of fodder and other supplies or accessories for horses for immediate use. As it is rather uncertain what a "horse" is in many Acts of Parliament I have had recourse to the Army Act of 1881, which gives the widest interpretation of that term. It is as follows:
" The expression 'horse' includes a mule, and the provisions of this Act shall apply to any beast of whatever description, used for burden or draught or for carrying persons in like manner as if such beast were included in the expression 'horse'."
I cannot see why if a horse is to be given fodder a mule or donkey should not equally have the advantage of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 28, at end insert ("The expression 'horse' has the same meaning as in the Army Act, 1881").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As this matter is still under consideration I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw this Amendment now, and it shall be considered between now and Report stage.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am always reasonable, and I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 28, at end insert:
(" (2) Any reference in this Act to any other enactment shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by any subsequent enactment, including this Act ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Repeals]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am going to ask your Lordships to leave out this clause, as I am proposing to deal with the repeals which this clause represents in the Fourth Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 14.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, citation, application and commencement]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is also part of the same thing, and I am dealing with it in the Fourth Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, at end insert:
(" (4) The enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule [Trades and Businesses Exempted from the Provisions of Section one]:
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to intrude again, but I submit that it is of not much use amending Schedules which presumably are going to be deleted from the Bill. Would it not be possible for the Amendments to be moved in the appropriate places in the Schedules which it is proposed to substitute?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I point out that possibly there will be no appropriate place in the substituted Schedules? I could not move some of my Amendments in the proposed new Schedules at all.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have considered this matter. Of course it would be possible to hand in manuscript Amendments to the proposed new Schedules. On the other hand, if the Amendments were discussed as a whole and it was the general sense of the House that certain Amendments were desirable, they could then, if the noble Marquess agrees, be dealt with on the Report stage or Third Reading. It would be rather difficult to take these Amendments and put them in the appropriate place in the proposed new Schedules.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I would certainly agree to what the noble Lord Chairman has said.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I have a number of Amendments to this First Schedule, but the first, which is to leave
458
out from "shop" in line 14 on page 14 to the end of line 16, I propose to withdraw. The next, in line 17, which is after "chocolates" to insert "flour and," I do not move. The next, in line 19, to leave out "necessary," has been met, and I do not move. The next, in line 27, to leave out "fresh" in both places, and after "milk" to insert "milk products," I do not move. The fifth, in line 28, to leave out "fresh" in both places, has been met, and I do not move; and the last, in line 29, at end, to insert "bulbs and plants," I do not move.
LORD MOYNE LORD MOYNE had on the Paper an Amendment in the twelfth paragraph, to leave out "and souvenirs" and to insert "souvenirs and photographic films and plates." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to enable the London Zoological Society and other like bodies to sell photographic films on Sundays, as they have long been allowed to do. But as it is covered by the noble Earl's Schedule, and as I presume that will be accepted, I do not move. I will, however, move, at the end of the Schedule, to insert, "The sale of fodder and other supplies or accessories for horses and required for immediate use."The object is to put horse transport on the same privileged footing under the Bill as motor transport. Motor transport is, it is true, driving horses off the road in many districts, but there are a good many people still who do drive horses, and it is very desirable that it should be made perfectly clear that they are to be allowed to buy the necessary forage on Sunday. This matter was raised in another place in a rather wider form than is now proposed. The promoters of the Bill said they sympathised with the object, and saw that it would be quite unjust to refuse some such provision. But it was pointed out in the debate that if the Amendment passed without any limitation, as was then proposed, it would open all the hay and corn chandlers' shops on Sundays. Therefore I now move it in a much narrower form, and limit it to forage required for immediate use. The Home Office did not oppose this Amendment in principle, but they said they did not feel sure that it was necessary, that it was probable that the occasional sale of fodder could not be described as carrying on a retail trade. But if there is any doubt about this surely it is wise to cover

459
the point in the Bill, so that there need never be any litigation or friction in the future. I hope the promoter of the Bill will see his way to put down an Amendment himself, or to see that this point is covered on the next stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, at end insert ("The sale of fodder and other supplies or accessories for horses and required for immediate use.")—(Lord Moyne.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: It is perfectly obvious that something of this kind must be put into the Bill, particularly at a moment when riding on horseback is becoming much more common. At the same time, I am still a little worried by the phrasing of the Amendment. I am unaware of what Lord Munster is going to say about it, but it appears to me that it would still enable any corn chandler or any saddler to supply an accessory for a horse. I am also not perfectly certain whether the words "for immediate use" really restrict that sufficiently. Subject therefore, to anything that your Lordships may decide, I should like to devise a form of words of my own which would narrow the scope of the Amendment and at the same time achieve its object.
LORD MOYNE: I do not think there is very much danger of shops keeping open for the very small amount of trade that would be possible if the only legitimate form of sale was "for immediate use;" but as the noble, Marquess has undertaken to consider it and to cover the point, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I should like to know from the noble Marquess if he considers that a betting slip is an accessory to a horse?
LORD SNELL: Is it the purpose of the noble Marquess to make some alteration for the Report stage?
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: That was my intention.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, at the end of the Schedule, to insert "the sale of products of rural industries or homemade articles." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment, and I cannot see any sound reason why it should not be accepted. Its intention is to allow the sale of products of rural industries
460
or home-made articles on a Sunday. We all know that, in motoring about the country, we meet tea-shops with pottery and basket work for sale. Rural industries sadly need encouragement, and these small people need encouragement. I cannot see why a wayfarer who has a cup of tea should not be able to buy a basket or piece of pottery if he so wishes.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, at end insert ("the sale of products of rural industries or homemade articles").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: This Amendment, it seems to me, reads a little more innocuously than it will actually work out. I should like, first of all, to take the last two words. The noble Lord made many jokes at my expense on the Second Reading about the ambiguity of the Bill. Let us take his own efforts in drafting. We find he has committed himself to "home-made articles." I am no lawyer, but I am advised that if this Amendment is accepted as it stands he would thereby enable anybody who brewed his own wine or beer to violate every licensing law; in the country. I cannot believe that that was seriously intended by the noble Lord. After all, "home-made articles" is a wide term. There is practically nothing that cannot be made in the home if you choose to define the home in the way that-suits you best. And it does seem very wrong that people should be allowed to sell in the streets of their village jumpers that they have knitted, when the shop whose proper trade it is to sell them is forbidden to do so by law. You could go on enumerating almost indefinitely the rural home industries that would spring up under the great stimulus that this Amendment would give. Therefore, though I sympathise in a way with the bona-fide home industry, I cannot possibly ask your Lordships to accept so very dangerous an Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Do I understand that the noble Marquess definitely excludes any consideration of the sale of any home-made articles or the products of rural industries, or will he look into it between now and Report and see whether innocuous words can be substituted?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Before the noble Marquess answers that, I would like to ask whether he could not include some of the more strictly domestic products which

461
are aimed at by Lord Mount Temple. If I may just give an instance, the noble Marquess has talked about knitted goods. I happen to know of a man in the distressed area of West Cumberland who makes a living by selling stockings, and perhaps jerseys, made on a home-made frame. That man has been out of work for years, but motorists in numbers pass through his village on the way to the Lakes and other touring districts. It does seem to me a bit hard that on Sunday, which is probably his day of harvest, he should not be able to sell what is so essential to his well being.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I certainly sympathise entirely with the object of Lord Mount Temple and Lord Phillimore. I will certainly do the very best I can, but I cannot promise anything, because I have already given a great deal of consideration to this when I first saw this Amendment, and it is extremely difficult so to frame your Amendment as only to include the bona-fide home industries.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I entirely agree with the noble Marquess. I think he will do his best, but I think there is a case, if you can restrict it. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of the Schedule, to insert: "The sale of books and stationery at such terminal or main line railway or omnibus stations or at such aerodromes as may from time to time be approved by the Secretary of State."The noble Lord said: This has been met by the Government Amendment and I do not move.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out the First Schedule and insert the following new Schedule:
(" FIRST SCHEDULE.
Transactions for the purposes of which a shop may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday.
1. The sale of—

(a) intoxicating liquors;

(b) meals or refreshments whether or not for consumption at the shop at which they are sold but not including the sale of fried fish and chips at a fried fish and chip shop;

(c) newly cooked provisions and cooked or partly cooked tripe;

(d) table waters, sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery and ice-cream (including wafers and edible containers);

462

(e) flowers, fruit and vegetables (including mushrooms) other than tinned or bottled fruit or vegetables;

(f) milk and cream not including tinned or dried milk or cream, but including clotted cream whether sold in tins or otherwise;

(g) medicines and medical and surgical appliances by any person who has entered into a contract with an insurance committee under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1924 to 1935, for the supply of drugs and appliances;

(h) aircraft, motor or cycle supplies, or accessories for immediate use;

(i) tobacco and smokers' requisites;

(j) newspapers, periodicals and magazines;

(k) books and stationery from the bookstalls of such terminal and main line railway or omnibus stations, or at such aerodromes as may be approved by the Secretary of State;

(l) guide books, postcards, photographs, reproductions, photographic films and plates, and souvenirs at any gallery, museum, garden, park or ancient monument under the control of a public authority or university, and, if and to the extent that the local authority certify that such sale is desirable in the interests of the public, it any other gallery or museum, or at any place of natural beauty or historic interest, or at any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens or at any aquarium;

(m) photographs for passports;

(n) requisites for any game or sport at any premises or place where that game or sport is played or carried on.

(2) The transaction of—

(a) Post Office business;

(b) The business carried on by a funeral undertaker.")

The noble Earl said: The points that I wish to make in connection with this Amendment are, first, that the new Schedule partially enlarges the exemptions and, secondly, that it revises the terms of the First Schedule with regard to greater provision. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has said that all his points have been met, and I believe that the wishes of other noble Lords have also been met, so with these few words I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the First Schedule and insert the said new Schedule.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD SNELL: I hope the noble Earl is able to assure us that this First Schedule is made out in accordance with the general principles of the Bill, and that it does not introduce any special new factors. If that is so, of course we should be glad to support its passing. I should

463
like, in doing so, to express on my own behalf, and on behalf of my friends, a word of congratulation to the noble Marquess who has promoted this Bill, and to the noble Earl, for the great help they have been able to give to the Committee in this complicated measure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule:
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Trades and Businesses in respect of which a Partial Exemption Order may be made.
The sale of bread and flour confectionery, including rolls and fancy bread.
The sale of fish (including shell-fish).
The sale of groceries and other provisions commonly sold in grocers' shops.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out the Second Schedule and insert the following new Schedule:
SECOND SCHEDULE.
"Transactions in respect of which a partial exemption order may be made under Section two.
The sale of—

(a) bread and flour confectionery, including rolls and fancy bread;

(b) fish (including shell-fish);

(c) groceries and other provisions commonly sold in grocers shops;

in so far as such sales are not included amongst the transactions mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out the Second Schedule and insert the said new Schedule.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert the following new Schedules:
THIRD SCHEDULE.
" Transactions in respect of which an order may be made under Section Four of this Act.
The sale of—

(a) any articles required for the purposes of bathing or fishing;

(b) photographic requisites;

(c) toys, souvenirs and fancy goods;

(d) books, stationery, photographs, reproductions and postcards;

(e) any article of food."

FOURTH SCHEDULE.
Enactments repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

3 Geo. 4 c. cvi.

An Act to repeal the Acts now in force relating to bread to be sold in the City of London and the liberties thereof, and within the weekly bills of mortality, and ten miles of the Royal Exchange, and to provide other regulations for the making and sale of bread, and preventing the adulteration of meal flour and bread within the limits aforesaid.

In section sixteen, the words from "or shall on any other part of the said day" to "of any sort or kind"; the words "or deliver"; "or delivered"; and the proviso.

6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 37.

The Bread Act, 1836.

In section fourteen, the words from "or shall on any other part of the said day" to "of any sort or kind"; the words "or deliver"; "or delivered"; the words from "provided nevertheless" to "in this Act contained."

20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 35.

The Hairdressers and Barbers Shops (Sunday Closing) Act, 1930.

The whole Act."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
After the Second Schedule insert the said new Schedules.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I have on the Paper a formidable number of Amendments. They are all drafting Amendments, with the exception of one which is practically drafting. It has been suggested by the Lord Chairman that it may be the desire of the House

465
that the Amendments on the Paper down to and including Clause 147 be taken en bloc. All those Amendments are drafting or consequential, and I beg to move accordingly.
Amendments moved—
Clause 15, page 10, line 39, leave out ("they") and insert ("the local authority")
Clause 21, page 17, line 28, leave out ("into a sewer belonging to") and insert (", whether directly or indirectly, into the sewers or sewage disposal works of")
Clause 27, page 21, line 35, leave out ("drain or sewer") and insert ("sewer or drain")
Clause 27, page 22, line 3, leave out ("drain or sewer") and insert ("sewer or drain")
Clause 30, page 23, line 14, after ("affect") insert ("prejudicially")
Clause 55, page 41, line 13, leave out ("for") and insert ("with respect to")
line 14, leave out ("for")
Clause 61, page 47, line 30, leave out subsection (3)
Clause 64, page 50, line 2, leave out ("is") and insert ("has been")
Clause 71, page 55, line 8, leave out from ("to") to ("this") in line 11 and insert:
("(a) any buildings, being school premises, erected or to be erected according to plans which are under any regulations relating to the payment of grants required to be, and have been, approved by the Board of Education; or
(b) any buildings constructed by a county council or local authority in accordance with plans approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1931, or any Act amending those Acts or any of them; or
(c) any buildings belonging to any statutory undertakers and held or used by them for the purposes of their undertaking:
Provided that the exemption conferred by paragraph (c) of")
Clause 72, page 56, line 7, leave out ("undertake") and insert ("have undertaken")
Clause 72, line 21, leave out ("do not undertake") and insert ("have not undertaken")
Clause 75, page 57, line 28, leave out ("undertake") and insert ("have undertaken")
Clause 111, page 81, line 26, leave out from ("distance") to end of line 28 and insert ("a sufficient supply of wholesome water for domestic purposes")
Clause 132, page 94, line 39, leave out subsection (4)
Clause 111, page 95, line 8, leave out subsection (5) and reinsert it on page 96 at the end of line 2.
Clause 111, page 96, line 9, at end insert ("and
(b) if they supply water outside their district, send at least one month before the application is made a copy of the by-laws to the local authority of every district in which any premises to which the by-laws will apply are situate.")
Clause 138, page 93, line 38, leave out ("is without") and insert ("has not, either in the house or within a reasonable distance thereof,")
Clause 147, page 107, line 21, leave out subsection (2)
page 108, line 6, at end insert ("Any such temporary order shall specify the period during which it is to continue in operation ").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 158:
Persons ceasing to occupy house to disclose to owner any recent case of notifiable disease, and to disinfect.
(2) The local authority shall give notice of the provisions of this section to the occupier and also to the owner of any house in which they are aware that there is a person suffering from a notifiable disease.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and also to the owner."The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall not take up your time at any length. Those words did not appear in the Bill as originally drafted. They were put in at the request of the National Federation of Property Owners, but as there has not been time to consult them formally, if there is any objection raised I shall not press the Amendment but hope that the matter may come up for consideration again at some later stages.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 29, leave out ("and also to the owner").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, on behalf of the National Federation of Property Owners I object to this Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, it remains for me to say very little. In the circumstances I think the course suggested by my noble friend is the best one—namely, that this Amendment should not be made at this stage.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the next three Amendments standing in my name be agreed to. They are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Clause 189, page 131, line 21, leave out ("this Part of this Act") and insert ("the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to nursing homes").
Clause 231, page 153, line 5, leave out ("apparatus") and insert ("appliances").
Clause 263, page 166, line 11, leave out ("the preceding subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 269:
Power of local authority to control use of moveable dwellings.
(5) Nothing in this section applies—
(ii) to a moveable dwelling (belonging to a person who is the proprietor of a travelling circus, roundabout, amusement fair or store (not being a pedlar, hawker, or costermonger) while it is being used by him in the course of travelling for the purpose of his business; or
(6) If an organisation satisfies the Minister that it takes reasonable steps for securing—

(a) that camping sites belonging to or provided by it, or used by its members, are properly managed and kept in good sanitary condition; and

(b) that moveable dwellings used toy its members are so used as not to give rise to any nuisance,

the Minister may grant to that organisation a certificate of exemption.
In this subsection the expression "member" in relation to an organisation includes a member of any branch or unit of the organisation.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (ii) of subsection (5), after "fair," to insert "stall." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I suggest to my noble friend Lord Gage that the word "stall" should be inserted in this clause because it is a well-known term in the show world. "Stallholder" includes those responsible for all the smaller games and that sort of thing other than roundabouts, circuses, and switchbacks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 172, line 18, after ("fair") insert ("stall.")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we agree to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (ii) of subsection (5), to leave out "while" and insert "provided that". The noble Viscount said: "My Lords, showmen use their caravans as homes, and in the nature of their business they have to travel about continually from fair to fair all the year round. Other caravan users use them for week-ends, holidays, and such like, whereas the showman uses his caravan the whole year round for his business. These showmen have used their caravans in this way for a very long time, and they feel they are entitled to some consideration. When the original Bill was issued, Clause 267, now Clause 268, related to tents, vans, sheds, etc. This clause was carefully considered, but nothing in it appeared to injure their calling. The Guild of Showmen, however, was much surprised to find that the Bill, as amended by the Joint Committee, contained a lengthy new clause, Clause 269—some five pages of print—relating to moveable dwellings, but still under the heading of tents, vans, sheds, etc., and it feels that the claims of its members who must use their caravans have been overlooked. The Guild of Showmen does not wish to take steps to hold up the Bill when it is returned to the House of Commons for consideration, and it has therefore endeavoured to keep its Amendments to the minimum it is entitled to ask for.
I hope that my noble friend will see his way to accept this Amendment. In all Private Bills which contain clauses relating to tents and sheds, the following exemption is inserted:
"Any person dwelling in a tent or van or other similar structure such as a roundabout proprietor, travelling showman or stallholder, not being a pedlar or hawker…."
This exemption, with slight alterations, has been in use for upwards of twenty-five years, and I think it is reasonable that this Amendment should be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 172, line 20, leave out ("while") and insert ("provided that").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is an Amendment of somewhat greater substance. It raises, it seems to me, two questions. Firstly, is the object in view a good one; and secondly,

469
do the words of the Amendment carry out their objective? On the first point I think your Lordships will agree that we ought not to interfere unreasonably with the legitimate carrying on of this very old-fashioned business of a travelling showman. It might be argued that by petty regulation of the camping sites of the showmen, some such effect might be produced. That is why we have introduced into this Bill the clause which the noble Lord wishes to amend. Perhaps I had better read it to your Lordships: it will be found on page 172. The exemption applies:
"to a moveable dwelling belonging to a person who is the proprietor of a travelling circus, roundabout, amusement fair or store (not being a pedlar, hawker or costermonger) while it, is being used by him in the course of travelling for the purpose of his business."
We think that those words do cover the case of a showman who is actively engaged in his business, but if the showman closes down his business, say, for the winter, which I believe is quite a common practice among some of them, then we do not see any particular reason why that showman should not be subjected to regulations in respect of perfectly legitimate sanitary requirements, for in that case he is using his van as a residence.
After all, every residence in this country is subject to some form of sanitary regulation. There have been some rather glaring cases of the necessity for these regulations. The words which my noble friend proposes to insert here, may, we feel, have the effect of permanently exempting these vans from the control of these licensing requirements. I am not a lawyer, but we are not at all sure what would be the legal effect of the meaning of the word "regularly", the insertion of which, after "used", is suggested by the noble Viscount in another Amendment. Is a van which is travelling in the summer months but laid up in the winter used regularly for travelling? It is a difficult question, but if the answer is "Yes" then such a van would be entirely exempted. To sum up, the whole of the clause as drafted is to avoid imposing hampering restrictions on the carrying on of the showman's business. He has no good ground for exemption apart from this, and if he lives in the van he should be subject to the same restrictions as other persons. Therefore I regret I must
470
resist this Amendment and I hope, for the reasons I have given, my noble friend will withdraw it.
THE EARL OF ON SLOW: My Lords, I have not the papers here which were handed to the Committee dealing with this clause. I have not had time to get them because, as your Lordships are aware, I was recently occupied in the Chair when your Lordships' House was in Committee. I therefore was unable to go out and get the papers, but my recollection is that this is the usual form of words and that it comes from Private Acts. My noble friend below me (Viscount Gage) will correct me if I am wrong. It is, I believe, the usual form inserted in Private Acts. As your Lordships will see and as my noble friend pointed out, the subsection says that nothing in this section applies to a moveable dwelling belonging to a travelling circus. I should have thought that that ought to have satisfied my noble friend Lord Bertie, because it seems to me to do what he requires, if I understood him rightly. I think if we were to alter it in the manner my noble friend has suggested we should perhaps be going rather farther in altering the law as it exists in Private Acts or in Public Acts than we intended to, or that the Joint Committee set out to do.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do not propose to press this Amendment now, but I do hope my noble friend Lord Gage will allow me to see him between now and Third Reading to discover if he cannot do something, because I really think there is a case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS moved, before "the organisation" at the end of subsection (6), to insert "or formed by". The noble Lord said: This really is only a drafting Amendment. I desire the words which I propose in my Amendment to be inserted in order to cover all members of the Boy Scouts and Guides associations and the Salvation Army. The words "or formed by" would cover all units that are not already covered in the wording of the Bill. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this small Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 173, line 8, after ("of") insert ("or formed by").—(Lord Somers.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we accept this Amendment. It is, as the noble

471
Lord has pointed out, more or less a drafting Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendments down in my name to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 173, line 24, leave out ("urban") and insert ("local").
Page 173, line 33, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("as is mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendments down in my name to Clauses 287, 290 and 291 are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 287, page 183, line 27, leave out from ("provisions") to end of section and insert ("of Parts IX and X of this Act with respect to entry into or upon, and inspection of, common lodging-houses and canal boats.")
Clause 290, page 185, line 10, leave out ("any") and insert ("the")
Clause 291, page 186, line 14, leave out ("subject as aforesaid.")—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 313 [Orders for amendment or adaptation of local Acts, etc.]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Any order made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days during the Session of Parliament, and, if before the expiration of that period either House resolves that the order be annulled, it shall be void, but without prejudice to the making of a new order:
Provided that in reckoning any such period of thirty days as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the same Amendment as that which I moved yesterday to the Bill of which the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, was in charge. It brings this Bill into line with that Bill, and I unashamedly confess that it is the result of secret negotiations with the Department. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 194, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has already informed your Lordships, the negotiations have ended in
472
the Government's acceptance of this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the whole of the remaining Amendments on the Paper are drafting. If there is any explanation required I shall be very pleased to try to give it, but I think it will be convenient to your Lordships that the Amendments be taken en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 315, page 195, line 28, after ("and") insert (", if the committee represent two or more councils or authorities, may")
Clause 315, page 195, line 30, at end insert ("councils and")
Clause 332, page 203, line 33, at end insert ("under either of the two last preceding sections")
Clause 332, page 203, line 36, leave out ("under the last but one preceding section")
Clause 332, page 204, line 3, leave out ("mentioned in the last preceding section")
Clause 343, page 210, line 33, after ("yards") insert ("appurtenant to buildings,")
Clause 346, page 216, line 30, at end insert:
(" (2) If any enactments or words mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act are, wholly or partly, re-enacted in a Consolidation Act of the present Session of Parliament, the references in the said Schedule to those enactments or words shall be construed as including references to such enactments or words in the Consolidation Act as His Majesty in Council may declare to be corresponding enactments or words, and accordingly any enactments and words to which such declaration extends shall also be repealed by this section.")
Third Schedule, page 221, line 26, after ("eight") insert ("three hundred and nine")
Third Schedule, page 223, line 11, at end insert
("3 & 4 Vict. c. 85.—The Chimney Sweepers and Chimneys Regulation Act, 1840.—Section six.")
Third Schedule, page 226, in the third column in line 31, leave out ("and subsection (1) of Section nine")
Third Schedule, page 226, in the third column leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert ("In subsection (4) of Section twenty-four the words ' new buildings and,' and")
Third Schedule, page 226, in the third column leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert ("In Section one hundred and one the words ' or buildings ' ")
Third Schedule, page 228, in the first column in line 26, leave out (" 55 & 56 ") and insert ("54 & 55 ").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (DRAINAGE OF TRADE PREMISES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I think it right to say a few words in moving the Third Reading of this Bill. First I want to thank your Lordships for the way in which you have allowed this Bill a quick passage. This Bill carries out the recommendations of several Commissions and great efforts have been made by local authorities, traders and all those interested in water, whether as users of water or as fishermen, to secure the passage of the principle of this Bill. That principle is a simple one. It is that trade effluents containing polluted matter shall be placed in the sewers instead of into open rivers. The Press has ignored this Bill up to the present time, but it is one of the most important measures which I hope will be passed through both Houses of Parliament this Session. Not only is the purity of the water supply absolutely necessary for the community in general, but it is necessary for trade purposes and for a great number of other reasons with which I need not trouble your Lordships to-night.
The reason I want to say a few words at this stage is that this is a Private Bill promoted by a great number of organisations and associations who have met together and who have not only approved the principle of the Bill but have seen to it that every interest shall be properly protected. I feel that it leaves your Lordships' House as perfect a Bill to carry out its object as any measure that could be passed into law. At it is a Private Bill there is, however, a danger when it goes to another place that it may not get on to the Statute Book unless the members there realise what the Bill will do, how it will improve the condition of our streams and rivers, how it will prevent further pollution in many cases, and what advantage it will be to the community in connection with amenity.
There is another point I should like to mention. Hundreds and thousands of working men who to-day fish for coarse fish find the rivers getting more and more impure by reason of trade effluents discharging into them. On the Severn and the Trent, on the two rivers Ouse and on other rivers large bodies of men find their recreation and their enjoyment.
474
I would ask those who fish for trout on the lochs and streams of Scotland and fly fishers on the Test and Itchen to think how angry they would be if cyanide was placed in private waters where they get their enjoyment. In the same way I feel that working men who go fishing for coarse fish are entitled to some regard and to have impurities kept out of the rivers. I want members in another place to realise that this is a measure which will promote the purity of the streams of this country without doing any one any harm, and I hope that they will allow it to pass into law at the earliest possible moment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EAEL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think I shall be voicing the general sentiment of your Lordships when I congratulate the noble Lord on the exemplary patience and tactical skill with which he has piloted this very valuable addition to our public health code through all its stages in this House. It remains for the Government, by providing the essential facilities in another place, to ensure that his efforts have not been in vain. I welcome his remarks on the Third Reading. I sincerely hope that they will be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT by members in another place and that the gist of his remarks will be widely reported in the Press.
I want to say a very few words on behalf of the London County Council, the Metropolitan Borough Councils and the Port of London Authority. These bodies have been obliged, owing to the special circumstances obtaining in the London area, to support the exclusion of this area from the territory in which the provisions of the Bill will become operative. At the same time they wish to indicate that if the Bill reaches the Statute Book they will follow the practical working of its provisions with the utmost attention, and if those provisions prove beneficial to the sewerage system in those areas whore they are adopted the London County Council will certainly consider what steps they would have to take in order to obtain similar provisions for the London area. That is to say they are waiting to see how the Bill works before they can make up their minds as to whether it may be necessary for them also to ask for legislation.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I cannot give a precise undertaking as to what will happen to this Bill when it reaches another place, but it is obvious from the fact that the Bill has been prepared in close consultation and in collaboration with the Ministry of Health that the Government view it with a certain amount of sympathy. I can only add my congratulations to the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill on its successful passage through your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Privilege Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PILOTAGE AUTHORITIES (LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PROPOSED NEW FORTH BRIDGE.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the strength of public opinion in Scotland in favour of the erection of a road bridge across the Firth of Forth at Queensferry as being very necessary for extending transport facilities in the East and from the South to the North of Scotland and for other important reasons; and further to ask that the requisite grant be provided from the Road Fund so that the work of construction may be started as soon as possible in accordance with the comprehensive scheme which has already been drawn up and presented to the Ministry of Transport by the Edinburgh Corporation, the Fife County Council, and other local authorities principally concerned in the matter; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to move the Motion I have put on the Paper in connection with the Forth road bridge, because I feel that the subject is far too important to be dealt with in such a small House. I have arranged with my noble friends who are supporting me in the matter to defer bringing up the matter until Wednesday, July 22. But I should also like to add another reason why perhaps it is useful that
476
the debate should be adjourned until then. Further information has been sought by the Ministry of Transport from the local authorities concerned with regard to the advantages and necessity of the bridge. That information is now being compiled, and I sincerely hope that, as some three weeks will elapse between now and the time that I move my Motion on July 22, the local authorities will by then have presented that information to the Ministry of Transport, and that we shall be able in your Lordships' House, when the debate takes place, to have some real expression of opinion from the Government as to what attitude they propose to adopt towards the project.

CENTRAL (COAL MINES) SCHEME (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think that some brief explanation is required for the Motion which stands in my name: That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved. I shall endeavour to be as brief as I possibly can at this late hour in explaining the provisions of this Draft Order. It will, I think, be within the recollection of the House that during the last General Election the Government announced that their contribution to the coal industry would be the unification of royalties, the setting up of organised selling, and a Royal Commission on Safety in Mines. Moreover, an assurance was given to my honourable friend the Minister of Mines that the colliery owners would, by the middle of this year, cause to be set up a complete and effective organisation for the sale of coal in each district, with co-ordination between districts through the Central Council. It is this latter Order which requires an affirmative Resolution, and which might well be described as the axis around which these seventeen District Orders revolve. The House will, therefore, observe that it is the necessary mechanism for the completion of the promise which the coalowners gave, not only to the Government but also to the workmen.
Part I of the Schedule gives power to the Central Council to issue directions to any district with regard to the terms and conditions of sale in that district. At present the Central Council can only

477
act on the complaint of a district and with regard to minimum prices. In the future, however, they are required to act on their own initiative in regard to prices, terms and conditions of sale, and complaints on any other matter. I think that is the whole of this Order, and if there is any further information the House requires I shall, of course, endeavour to give it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, as the only representative in either House on the Central Council, and as one who has been on that Central Council since the 1930 Act came into operation, and as I have been a vice-chairman and one of the district members since that period, perhaps a few words from me may be permissible on this occasion. The Draft Order seems to us, as coalowners, to be necessary to carry out the arrangements for central selling. We have undertaken to avoid competition and evasions, and the co-ordination required by the Central Council is essential in order that we may carry out our obligations to the Government. Personally, I always regarded the Act of 1930 as somewhat opposed to the free operation of economic law, but this alteration is now required after the experience which we have had in conducting the Act of 1930 and is only a natural development. While we have had powers to regulate our prices and quota, yet, in the light of experience, further powers of central selling are now required.
I believe that the operation of the Act of 1930 has had a really beneficial effect upon the industry. We have been passing through a period of great depression, with a capacity, over the greater portion of the period, greater than the demand, and if we had not had the operation of that Act of Parliament, inevitably there would have been further difficulties of many kinds occurring in the coalfields: reactions both of an economic and of a social character. Some coalowners appear to have either voted against the schemes in the locality or to have criticised the central selling scheme, but, so far as I am aware, no coalowner has done that with a view to preventing the passage of this Order or of the schemes. Their
478
motive has been one of genuine belief that the schemes might be simplified and that some money might be saved in their administration. The schemes have, however, been put forward with a view to trying to help the men to have their conditions improved and their wages increased, as well as to secure increased profit for the industry. The Amendments, as I say, are designed merely to simplify the schemes and reduce the expense of operating.
The schemes have to some extent, up to the present, failed to fulfil all our hopes, and when the demand came last autumn by the Government that we should secure some form of central selling in order to obtain increased revenue, it was in response to that invitation of the Government that we undertook to carry out a central selling scheme both in our districts and centrally. That has naturally raised the apprehension of some of the consumers, because they see in the possession of a monopoly the possibility that prices might be raised to a height which would do some harm to certain industries in which the consumers are interested. As a rule the consumer is always right; at any rate, he has to be protected. There is no desire on the part of the coalowners to exploit the consumers; their interest is naturally to try to secure a steady trade at a reasonable profit, and to obtain only reasonable prices. I believe there is no reason now to apprehend that there will be any difficulty in finding a tribunal which will satisfy the consumers in the event of their taking any exception to the prices which may be asked for—a tribunal which will be impartial, which will be effective, and which will be prompt in its decisions.
Bearing all these questions of organisation in mind, I come to a point which the Minister for Mines made in another place when moving a Motion similar to that which the noble Earl has just moved here. He referred to the desirability of a reduction of units for which the Mines Bill which has recently been introduced was an integral part of a Government policy. The Coal Mines Bill already in the last six years has effected a great diminution in the number of units and it is surprising to-day to realise that 75 per cent. of the industry is carried on by 150 undertakings, and a great number of

479
these undertakings are associated with other colliery owners so that they have arrangements inter se which really make it not necessary at all to consider any further compulsory amalgamations. Amalgamations have been suggested to be made compulsory and it seems to me that probably the main motive was to find work for a commission which has not operated during the past five years by securing compulsory amalgamation. That commission requires no doubt to find some work, but there is no work really for that commission to do in the interest either of the trade or the country. The ostensible object was to close down redundant collieries. The effect of the Mines Act of 1930 has been already to close down redundant collieries, and I say generally we have not redundant collieries which need to be forced down compulsorily by any Government organisation. Mechanisation will effect far more than any compulsory amalgamations which the Government can make. The operation of the selling schemes will conduce to voluntary mergers wherever required, and compulsory amalgamations are unnecessary.
One of the objects which I have in rising to-night in connection with this matter is to warn the Government that the miners are opposed to such compulsory amalgamations, that all those who have investments in collieries or in other businesses are opposed to forcible amalgamations such as are suggested by the Government, because those who have invested their money in undertakings will have no longer any concern with those who are going to direct them, and will have no opportunity of going before a judicial tribunal and securing justice if in the public interest their money is going to be extracted from them and dealt with by some other controlled body, which will put an end to all liberty of investment, which is the basis of successful enterprise in this country. The problem is a very important one, and we as coalowners intend to carry out selling arrangements to the advantage of the whole community, and we can do it best without further amalgamations being inserted in the Bill during the coming autumn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I may perhaps just reply quite briefly to the remarks which the noble Lord has made.
480
I am of course glad that he supports the Draft Order which I have presented to your Lordships to-night, and indeed for one with such knowledge as he possesses of the coal industry to support it, is some sort of comfort to my right honourable friend. With regard to the question which he put to me dealing with amalgamations I am afraid I am not in a position at this time to give him an explanation. He will observe that the Bill is now before the House of Commons, and I think the proper time to discuss it would be when the Bill arrives in this House. I am afraid I cannot go further at the present time.
LORD GAINFORD: I would not have referred to the subject unless the Secretary for Mines had referred to it in moving a similar Motion in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MALTA: THE CASE OF JOSEPH ORLANDO SMITH.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I beg your indulgence before the adjournment is moved to submit a question of which private notice has been given, and which arises from a statement made in another place by a Minister of the Crown. In doing so, I will carefully observe the practice that there shall be no reference to speeches in another House, except in so far as they are statements of a responsible Minister of the Crown. The question must be raised now because the statement prejudices a deputation which has submitted a certain request for the free pardon of Joseph Orlando Smith to the predecessor of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, to which an answer has not yet been given. I am quite certain the statements made, which are prejudicial, have been made unintentionally. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies has only recently assumed office, and his predecessor, a few days before relinquishing office, assured me he had not yet decided upon the deputation of which I had the honour of being a member together with the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who leads the Opposition in this House.
The deputation asked for a free pardon. The statement which I ask the Government whether they are prepared to reconsider is reported in the OFFICIAL

481
REPORT of the House of Commons. With reference to Joseph Orlando Smith Mr. Ormsby-Gore said that "his sentence was wiped out immediately." I ask whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to reconsider that statement, because the sentence was not wiped out immediately, and the deputation are now asking for a free pardon. The remainder of the term of imprisonment was wiped out, but the fine was not wiped out and the costs were not dealt with, nor was the blackening of character by being in a position to be periodically pilloried in the anti-English Press as a spy, merely because he, had given useful information to the British Secret Service. So far from the sentence having been wiped out, quite recently in Malta he has again been insulted in the Press as a spy, and although he has asked the authorities to put in motion the anti-libel law, and has asked the Maltese police to protect him, they have refused to take action.
I also wish to ask the Government if they are prepared to reconsider the fact that in the very same speech in which the prejudicial statement was made we are told by the same Secretary of State that the Labour members ill the Maltese Parliament are among the most useful members of that Assembly. Joseph Orlando Smith was the Secretary of that Party. Joseph Orlando Smith made that Party pro-British, a matter of the greatest importance, considering the importance of the dockyard to-day. He is now the elected President of the Malta Trade Union Council. And what does Mr. Ormsby-Gore say in this same speech? He tells us that although he is going to abolish the Senate of Malta he is not going to abolish the Trade Union Council; he is going to allow the Trade Union Council to remain. He said:
"What I want to make clear to the honourable Member is that this does not mean that the Trade Union Council in Malta ceases to exist or ceases to be effective—"
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: On a point of order, I should like to ask whether it is not entirely unusual in asking a question of which private notice has been given to make a speech of considerable length on it.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I beg permission to deal with the point of order by saying I will say no more, but I think that what I have said is useful and interesting to your Lordships, and may be helpful to the Secretary of State. And, as I am not allowed to say any more, may I ask that the question be postponed and be put on the Paper in another form? I think I was bound to say something at once in order not to be cut out. I think I have done enough for that, and, with the indulgence of the House, I will put the question on the Notice Paper in the usual way, so that it may not be barred by its being said that I let it pass.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, if I may contribute a word on the point of order, it is of course entirely out of order in this House to get up and make a speech with regard to a matter on which there is no Motion and no Question on the Order Paper, but any noble Lord is entitled as of right to put down a Question, and by putting down a Question he can make a speech by the customary practice of this House. If he wishes to make two speeches, then he moves for Papers. If he wishes to make only one speech, then he puts down a Question and says what he wants to say. But it is necessary, in order to make a speech at all, to take one or other of those two courses.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I hope it is in order for me just to say this, that I hope the fact that the noble Lord has not been able to deal with this case to-night will not mean that there is not a case to put and that His Majesty's Government will not consider it seriously whenever the opportunity arises.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I do not think there is any object in my delaying the House this evening. But quite obviously if the noble Lord puts this Question down in the ordinary way the Government will attempt to give the most satisfactory answer possible.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.