§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVAMy Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill that stands in my name. The purpose of this Bill is a perfectly plain and perfectly simple one. It is set out in the first clause, and indeed made clear by the title; it is to enforce the closing of certain retail shops on Sunday. I hope to show that 254 this Bill is a necessary Bill, and that the first reason why it is necessary is an historical one. The fact is that the Act passed in 1677, which still governs all Sunday legislation, has become a dead letter. It is no longer applicable, and never can be made applicable to modern life. It has many provisions and many prohibitions. Among the prohibitions is one against travel by water, and it recommends that those who do not pay the fine provided for in the Act be put in the stocks. In particular it provides a 5s, fine for those who trade on Sunday. Of course 5s. in those days was a very much larger sum than it is to-day, when, as we all know, it is not a deterrent. The only place where the provisions of that Act are still strictly enforced is the City of Hull, whose pious pedantry manages to extract £4,000 a year from those of its traders who are summoned in their courts every Monday morning. I may say that in my opinion those £4,000 are the only things going to be lost if this Bill passes. If a thing is illegal in Hull it must be illegal all over the country, and we have the recent dictum of the Lord Chief Justice that if the law is wrong and cannot be applied properly, the real remedy is not to turn a blind eye but to alter the law. The purpose of this Bill is to alter the law and to bring it into line with modern thought.
The Bill is also necessary in my view because this practice of Sunday trading which has grown up under the 1677 Act is steadily increasing. I would like to give a few figures to show how great this evil is. In Islington alone 1,500 shops are open on Sundays. The same applies in varying degree to the other London boroughs. All over the country you find the same sort of figure—in Birkenhead there are 500 odd, in Cardiff 1,000, in Middlesbrough 1,000 also. If this practice is not stopped now, it is going to grow very much more rapidy, because we all know that if one man in a district where all the shops are normally shut on Sunday decides to open his shop in the hope of capturing his neighbour's trade, then all his neighbours have to follow suit. That is happening all the time, with the result that we have reached the position where hundreds of thousands of shopkeepers and shop assistants are working, very often against their own religious convictions, 255 nearly always against their own inclination, simply in necessary defence of their livelihood.
It may be said, and has been said, that this evil—I do not think that any one would deny that for a man to work seven days a week is an evil—is a necessary evil, because to try to do away with it would involve an impossible alteration in the habits of our people, which they have acquired during the last few years owing to cheaper forms of transport, a higher standard of living, and perhaps to a changed conception of what Sunday means. I can assure your Lordships that if that contention were true, if, in the terms of the Amendment, the Bill were likely to involve an "unreasonable and vexatious interference" with the lives of our people, this Bill would never have been proposed, and I certainly would not be sponsoring it. But in fact, nothing of the kind will happen if this Bill passes. What I claim is that this Bill will give a much-needed relief to hundreds of thousands of people who are now working seven days a week, without interfering in the least with the normal Sunday habits of our people to-day.
I say that for this reason. There are two classes of goods which retail shops sell. The first are those the desire for which can be satisfied just as easily one day as the next. It does not matter in the least whether you buy your book on Monday or Tuesday or a cap on Thursday or Friday, The desire is there, and no loss is incurred if on one particular day you are unable to satisfy it. The number of shops which are open on Sunday which sell that sort of commodity is simply enormous—shops like booksellers, boot and shoe shops, corn chandlers, motor cycle shops, radio and gramophone shops, and many more. It is totally unnecessary from the consumer's point of view that those shops should be open on Sunday, and totally unnecessary from the shop-keeper's point of view, because, after all, one does not increase the volume of trade by opening on Sunday, one merely spreads it over a longer period. No one suddenly walks out and says: "It's a fine Sunday morning and therefore I will buy a pair of trousers." That is not the way the consumer's mind works. The volume of trade is exactly the same. You either buy your pair of trousers on Sunday or 256 you do not buy, but certainly if you do not want a pair of trousers on Saturday you are not going to buy because you see the shop open on Sunday. Those are the shops which are going to be affected by this Bill, and I suggest that they can perfectly well close on Sunday with an immense amount of benefit to their employees and owners, and without any harm whatever to the consumer.
Now we come to the second class of goods. Those are goods the desire for which has to be satisfied at once or not at all. Either you want an ice now or you do not want it. If you cannot get petrol immediately you are definitely inconvenienced. If you cannot get cigarettes on the day you want them it is no consolation to be told that you can get them on Monday. If the shops selling those classes of goods were to be affected by this Bill then both the consumer and the shopkeeper, whose livelihood would be destroyed, would have a real sense of grievance. But if you look at the Bill you will see that Clause 2 expressly exempts from the provisions of this Bill the whole of the shops which sell the articles mentioned in the First Schedule. If your Lordships will look at that First Schedule you will see there as complete a list as any man could desire of the things that any reasonable person might require at short notice on Sunday. You have alcohol, meals and refreshments, mineral waters, table waters, sweets, ice-cream, petrol, coffee, newspapers, medicine, fresh milk and cream, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables. I would like at this stage to point out that this provision for fresh fruit and vegetables is specially designed for those wayside traders, men and women, who try to sell on Sundays fresh fruit and flowers to motorists. Then there are also tobacco, post-office business, postcards and so on.
I suggest that that is a very complete list. It is deliberately designed so that no member of the public should be inconvenienced on Sundays. The list has gone through a very prolonged examination in the Committee stage in another place, and I would further add that I understand that to it is to be added in Committee here, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, a further Amendment based on information gained from all the seaside resorts in the country with the aim that we should do their 257 business no harm. As we are on the Schedules at the moment, I would like to point out that in the Second Schedule there is a further short list of exemptions, such as bread, fish and groceries, which can be sold on Sunday morning until ten o'clock if two-thirds of the traders of the district present a petition to the local authority desiring to be given power to take advantage of that provision. I am perfectly prepared to admit that there may be left out of the Schedule some article that ought to be in it, and I would like to take the opportunity of saying that if this Bill is given a Second Beading and your Lordships have any other additions to make to it I shall be only too glad to give them my deepest consideration. Therefore I do feel that in view of that Schedule it is quite wrong to suggest, as the Amendment does, that the general public will be seriously affected by this Bill.
§ LORD MOUNT TEMPLEMay be.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVAMay be seriously affected. Still less may the small shopkeeper be seriously affected by this Bill because, after all, what does the small shopkeeper sell? Tobacco, newspapers, mineral waters, sweets—all of which are in the First Schedule. Therefore I feel the case is made out that this Bill confers a great deal of good on a very deserving class and at the same time that the public at large will hardly be affected by it at all. In conclusion, I would only like to draw your Lordships' attention to three other clauses. The first is Clause 9, which deals with the obligation upon an employer to give those employees in the exempted trades who have to work on Sundays holiday on another day of the week instead. This clause establishes for the first time that no employee, no shop assistant, shall have to work seven days a week. I think that is a good clause because it does away with that curious anomaly that whereas you cannot work a man on his half-day, you can work him on Sundays as often as you like.
Now I come to the last two clauses to which I wish to draw attention—Clauses 5 and 6. People of certain faiths, not ably Jews and Seventh Day Adventists, hold their Sabbath on Saturday, and it would obviously be a great hardship to them if this Bill were passed into law 258 preventing them from opening on Sunday. Accordingly, following and, I believe, bettering the provisions of the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Act, 1930, Clause 5 provides that those orthodox Jews who care to make a statement that they do not intend to open their shops on Saturday are entitled to keep their shops open on Sunday until two o'clock. There are two points of view about that. It has been argued very forcibly that those who come to live in a Christian country must, while reaping its advantages, conform at the same time to its peculiarities and that therefore the Jews do not deserve particular consideration in this matter. I think that is a totally wrong attitude to take up. It seems entirely out of the tradition of tolerance in religious matters of which we have been so proud in the past to make a Jewish trader, because he is honest enough to believe in his religion, lose two days of the week from his trade. On the other hand, as probably most of your Lordships are aware, the Jews themselves are not quite satisfied with the clause because they consider they should be allowed to open on Sunday not merely until two o'clock but until six o'clock. That is a doubtful point, but it is obviously a Committee point, and I do not think I can do better than leave it to your Lordships to bring in an Amendment on the Committee stage if you so desire.
Finally, Clause 6 is designed for those places or markers, particularly in London, where Jewish and Gentile traders have been accustomed for a long time to trade in more or less equal numbers. Its object is to avoid the undesirable consequences that some people fear might arise if suddenly the Gentiles found that a monopoly of Sunday trading had been given in those markets to the Jews. Therefore similar provision is made that any Gentile who so desires can trade on Sunday provided he does not trade on Saturday.
These are the main provisions of the Bill, and I do not think there is any other point with which I need weary your Lordships. It is a Bill which has an enormous backing. The most reverend Primate gave me authority to say that he much regretted he was not able to come and support its general principles. It is backed by the Shop Assistants' Union, by the National Union of Distribute 259 Workers, and by many other people who know what the workers desire. In another place only eight out of just under 200 voted against it, and it passed through a stormy but very valuable Committee stage during which it was much improved. The Home Office has been very useful and kind in helping to improve it also. In general it is a Bill that has great support and has been very carefully thought out. It establishes two main principles—that every man is entitled to one day's rest in seven and for that reason Sunday trading should be discouraged; and also that the public habits of our people should be changed as little as possible in attaining that very desirable end. With these considerations I commend the Bill with confidence to your Lordships.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
§ LORD MOUNT TEMPLE had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Beading he would move, That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which may involve unreasonable and vexatious interference with the freedom and comfort of the public, and which may inflict grave injustice and hardship upon numerous small shopkeepers until better opportunity has been provided for full consultation with all the interests concerned, and until a careful examination of all the issues has been carried out by a Committee specially set up for that purpose.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the reasoned Amendment that stands in my name, I hope the noble Marquess will allow me—and I am sure I speak for all your Lordships—to congratulate him on his speech and on the moderate way he presented his case. We are very glad to see one who is comparatively so young so very much grown up in intellect and eloquence. I entirely agree with the last two remarks made by the noble Marquess when he said that every man in this country—and every woman, too, of course—should if possible have one day's rest in seven. We all want to try to get that. We also want—I am sure the noble Marquess will agree—to ensure that the British public should be as little inconvenienced as possible in trying to bring that about. Therefore, there is not really so much between the noble Marquess and myself 260 except that which stares one in the face in my Amendment. Though I hope we are trying to reach the same goal, I am not quite sure that the researches of the noble Marquess and of his friends have been sufficiently extensive to assure us that he is including and excluding exactly the right articles.
§ When I put down this Amendment I was not hostile to the general principle of the Bill. I simply wished to bring to the notice of your Lordships' House the fact that, in my opinion, there has not been sufficient consultation with local authorities and other interests up to now, and that the effect of the Bill and the injustices which it must create have not been sufficiently weighed. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, and I do not think you can have this sort of legislation without creating hardship for some people or some classes. What we ought to do, therefore, is to confine the injustices to as small a compass as possible. Personally, I think a Bill such as this ought not to be a Private Member's Bill at all. It ought to be a Government Bill for the reason that the Government can speak with so much more authority in these matters. The Government have means whereby they can get the views of people and societies much more effectively than private individuals. A Minister sends for the president of any society you like to mention; the president is flattered and comes at once to see the Minister, and puts the Minister wise about everything connected with that particular form of commercial activity. On the other hand, if Lord So-and-So wants to get hold of the chairman or president of this or that society or organisation, he will receive the same courtesy, but he will not receive a quarter of the information that a Minister gets. Moreover, a Minister has trained assistants whose business it is, whose lifelong interest it is, to deal with matters such as this. Therefore I regret that this is a Private Member's Bill and not a Government Bill.
§ The noble Marquess said that the Home Office had been most helpful. I do not think the Home Secretary has taken much trouble over the Bill. I understand the Home Secretary never entered the House of Commons when the Bill was being debated, much less did he speak on it, and it might have been 261 a Bill put forward in Northern Ireland or in Dublin for all he troubled himself about it. On the other hand the Undersecretary, Mr. Lloyd, was very courteous, and to a degree helpful; but he always has, I understand, taken the attitude that this is not a Government Bill. He said in effect: "This is not our Bill; you must do this on your own responsibility." I think it makes it all the more difficult for us to accept the provisions of this Bill when we know that the Home Office have been so very lukewarm in the matter.
§
Will your Lordships bear with me for a moment while I read a few remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I think on the Third Reading, at the very end of the discussions in another place. Mr. Lloyd said:
After the Second Reading, the Bill went straight to a Standing Committee, and I think it is probably true to say that the interests affected had not become fully alive to all the issues that were raised.
That is the diplomatic or Parliamentary way of saying that nobody knew about it at all. He went on:
It is also true that the Report stage followed very soon after the conclusion of the Committee stage.
That means, I understand, that the Committee stage followed three days after Second Reading—rather quick work seeing that the Bill was not printed until three days before the Second Reading was moved in the House of Commons. It cannot be said that any enthusiasm was shown for the Bill when less than half the members of the House of Commons Committee upstairs attended that Committee. Mr. Lloyd added:
Then we found that while the House was considering the Bill on Report the interests concerned were actually altering their views on the subject we were discussing.
I am not blaming the noble Marquess or his friends for that, but it does show that matters at that stage were certainly in a very fluid state, and that it was difficult for the promoters of the Bill to know whether they were voicing the views of any particular trade or not. Mr. Lloyd ended by saying:
That sort of thing "—
the things I have just described—
makes it extremely difficult for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to a Bill.
§ When a Minister says that it is extremely difficult for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to a Bill it usually means that no proper consideration was given at all. Mr. Lloyd was very diplomatic in the way in which he put it. But let us leave for a moment, for after all it does not very much matter, what happened in the House of Commons. What we have to decide is what we will do here. I am surprised that a late colleague of mine in another place should say "hear, hear" to those remarks.
§ LORD SNELLIronical.
§ LORD MOUNT TEMPLEIn all seriousness, I am not quite clear from the noble Marquess's speech, or from what I road in the Press, whether this Bill is founded on what I call the moral law—that is, that it is wicked to do anything except go to Church and sit still on a Sunday—or on expediency—that is to say, on the ground that we should try to get as much Sunday closing as we can without exasperating the British public too much. I do not think it can be founded on the moral law, for if so the promoters would not definitely exclude all wholesale traders, the use of employees on a Sunday afternoon to get ready for Monday morning, all public-houses, all post offices, all road and railway transport, and all seaside diversions. Therefore, if they have deliberately excluded all those forms of activity on a Sunday, I take it that they are not worrying about the Lord's Day Observance Act or any Biblical recommendations, but are acting from the point of view of getting as much leisure as they can for the workers of this country.
I want to put before your Lordships three further matters. The first is that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be a gold-mine to the lawyers. The definitions are so loose and so vaguely drawn that even no lawyer can understand what they really mean, and I think very many costly law suits will result if this Bill be passed. How can you say what are "necessary supplies"? What is the meaning of "for immediate use"? What is "fresh fruit"? No doubt many noble Lords will say that they can easily define fresh fruit, but is an orange fresh fruit? It remains fresh for a long time but it does not follow that it therefore comes under the head "fresh fruit." 263 What are "fresh vegetables" and what are "medicines"?
May I point out one or two results of this Bill if it is passed in its present state? I see my noble friend Lord Swaythling present and I hope he will take part in this debate. I do not see how you can possibly justify the treatment of the Jewish community in this Bill. At present the Jewish community, I understand—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—close their business places at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon and open them again at nine o'clock on Sunday morning, and they remain open until five or six o'clock in the evening. The proposal now is that they shall close at five o'clock on Friday as heretofore, open on Sunday at nine o'clock as they have done for many years, and close again at two and not at six o'clock. What has happened that the Jewish community should be treated differently from the way in which they have been treated for the last hundred years in London? This seems to me an attempt on the part of certain interests to get at the business of the Jewish community in London. I cannot see any other reason for treating them in that way. Is it suggested that they have committed some crime that they should be treated differently from the way they have been treated for the last fifty or hundred years? I shall be interested to hear from the noble Marquess when that particular clause comes up in Committee what reason he can give for treating the Jews in the way that they are going to be treated.
Then look at the absurdities that will result from this Bill unless further investigation is made and more accurate ideas are put forward as to what should be included and what excluded from the Bill. If a street trader has strawberries on his barrow and a tinned pineapple taken out of its tin side by side with the strawberries, he will be allowed under this Bill to sell the strawberries but if he sold the pineapple he would be liable to a fine of £5. I can see some point in any one wanting to diminish Sunday labour if there were not other things to be sold, but when these things in the Bill can be legally sold from a barrow why in the name of fortune should not the street trader be allowed to sell some other things if the British public want them? If the barrow is there and certain goods can be sold from it legally, why in the 264 name of Christianity not allow the man to sell other things if he is asked for them? Take another instance. I understand that if you belong to a sports club you can buy on a Sunday golf clubs, tennis rackets, tennis balls and all the equipment of sport without any let or hindrance from this Bill; but if a working man with a child wants to buy a ball for the child he cannot do so and anybody who sold him a ball would be liable to a fine of £5. Take chemists. Chemists under the Bill can only sell medicines and medical and surgical appliances. Therefore if I go to my chemist to ask him to make me up a prescription and suddenly remember that I have lost my toothbrush, and see a toothbrush upon his shelf, I shall not be able to buy it because it is not a medical or surgical appliance and is not medicine.
§ LORD MARLEYYou cannot do that now.
§ LORD MOUNT TEMPLEThe noble Lord will agree that it is very hard that I should not be allowed to buy a toothbrush on a Sunday if I want one. Take the newspapers. The big newspapers have looked after themselves exceedingly well, as usual, As I read this Bill, bookstalls and newsagents can sell newspapers, periodicals and magazines on Sundays, but they cannot sell a book or a pamphlet or a pencil. That is to say, at Waterloo on Sunday morning, I can buy a Sunday newspaper full of pictures of film stars and reports of divorce cases, whereas if I ask the bookstall keeper to sell me a Bible he would be liable to a fine for £5 for doing so. Noble Lords may laugh, but I think I have shown that there are certain Amendments which could be made in Committee.
Then again, take the provision relating to museums. A public museum or picture gallery can, on Sunday, sell guide books, postcards, photographs and souvenirs, whereas the Zoological Gardens can only sell these things by permission of the local authority. The Office of Works have restored extremely well many abbeys and ancient castles, and in some of them they have established little museums. If I go on Sunday to one of the little museums I can buy a picture postcard, but if the First Commissioner of Works sold me a picture postcard just outside without asking the local 265 authority's permission he would be committing an offence and be liable to a fine of £5. I could go on at considerable length quoting such absurdities. Therefore, I think I am perfectly justified in moving my reasoned Amendment to draw attention—I do not want to be rude to the noble Marquess—to the rather hasty way in which the Bill has been brought forward. I trust—indeed I am sure—that when we come to the Committee stage he will approach each Amendment on its merits. Everybody here wants to do his best to make it a good Bill, and will wish the noble Marquess all success.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after (" That ") and insert (" this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which may involve unreasonable and vexatious interference with the freedom and comfort of the public, and which may inflict grave injustice and hardships upon numerous small shopkeepers until better opportunity has been provided for full consultation with all the interests concerned, and until a careful examination of all the issues has been carried out by a Committee specially set up for that purpose.")—(Lord Mount Temple.)
§ LORD MARLEYMy Lords, I should like to explain briefly the point of view of the Opposition. Broadly speaking they give the Bill general support. The noble Marquess has explained it excellently. He put his case briefly and clearly and simply. Possibly he rather over-simplified the Bill in the explanations he gave. The noble Lord who moved the wrecking Amendment brought forward a number of Committee points, some of which no doubt have substance. Naturally his toothbrush is of vital importance to him on Sunday morning. Perhaps some means can be found by which he will be able to get his tooth-brush. The Government helped considerably with this Bill in another place, and I do not think it can be said that it has been hastily dealt with. It received consideration for nine days in Committee, and nine Committee days is a very considerable period for a Bill of this type.
We on this side of the House are very much against restrictions on the liberty of the individual. That is why we are Socialists; because Socialism provides an environment within which complete liberty may be available for all people. But sometimes we have to restrict the 266 liberty of some people in order that there may be liberty for others. That is a difficulty illustrated of course by the strawberry merchant who also wanted to sell pineapples. If this Bill passes there will, of course, be certain restrictions on selling, and if we want to buy things on Sunday we shall have to train our memories. Yet on the whole the benefits of the Bill seem to us to be greater than its disadvantages. The main disadvantage from our point of view is that it tends to hit the small consumers, the people who have nowhere to store food. These people have no refrigerators; probably there are about five or six people living in one room, and they are therefore in the habit of buying each day what they need. If they cannot buy on Sundays that will be a definite disadvantage to them. On the other hand, there will be an advantage to all those who work in shops, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, that it is not a question of moral law or expediency, but of justice to a section of the community who, without some such measure, would have no day of rest in the week. So far as workers in shops are concerned we believe it is right that a Bill of this type should be brought forward. I agree that some vested interests have benefited somewhat by exemption.
One point I would like to put to the noble Marquess, and that is that it is of vital importance that provision should be made for inspection to see that when the Bill is passed the law is not habitually broken. The law of 1677 is, of course, habitually broken. In connection with this point I would like to ask the noble Marquess to have regard to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops. In spite of the fact that there are a considerable number of inspectors, there are thousands of cases of overwork contrary to the law because the inspectors are not sufficiently numerous and, not being able to be in two places at once, cannot see that the law is enforced everywhere. In that Report one case quoted is that of a boy of seventeen working from eight o'clock in the morning of one day until one o'clock the following morning. That is sixteen and a half hours. Another case is one of young boys who are working after eleven at night, until four in 267 the morning, and are back again at seven for a sixteen-hour day following that. And these people were only discovered by the inspectors looking through the letter-box and seeing a boy working. When they got in, the boys had been hidden in a cellar by the employer. We do not want this sort of thing to happen, and therefore I think it is very important that adequate inspectorate should be provided for so that we shall not have breaking of the law.
The exemptions on the whole seem to me to be very reasonable. I do not suppose that everybody wants to buy trousers on Sunday, and we can quite well buy them on other days. Personally I am bound to say that I should like these exemptions to be made conditional on fair hours being worked. I do not know whether it is possible, but if we could say that we would only give exemptions provided that the total hours were fair and reasonable, I believe it would be a good thing. That is why personally, although I am probably disagreeing with those in my Party, I should prefer two shifts, so that we could definitely have legislation to clear up the hours of work. It would give more employment, and we could easily reduce the hours to forty a week. I think it is a great misfortune that the Government were not able to support the forty-hour week at Geneva a few days ago when it was discussed at the International Labour Organisation.
Finally, I want to say a word about Clauses 5 and 6. Again I realise that this is a Committee point, but I would say that, broadly speaking, as I understand it, the Jewish traders in this country are perfectly prepared to accept this measure and work it honestly and honourably, but they feel that it would be only fair if they kept open till, shall we say, five o'clock on Sunday instead of having to close at two o'clock. I think that the noble Marquess might expect to have the support of the Government in such a modification of Clause 5, because I notice that the Under-Secretary of State said in another place that he was not prepared, with regard to the position of persons of Jewish faith, to take a definite line as to the desirability or adequacy of these provisions. I think that statement might be used as a wedge if the noble Marquess desired to make the alteration, which I think would be a just alteration, to get that modification 268 through. I understand that agreement has been reached upon a completely new Clause 5. I do not know whether I am right, but I understand that a new Clause 5 has been discussed between the promoters of the Bill and the Departments concerned, giving a better wording; and it might be easy in that new Clause 5 to make the alteration, shall we say, from two o'clock to five o'clock in the afternoon for those who are closed on Saturday and want to remain open as compensation on Sunday.
There is a reason for that. We were told by the noble Marquess that it was desired to interfere as little as possible with the normal Sunday habits of the people. It is not my habit, but I am told that people have a normal habit of what is called "lying in" on Sunday morning; that is to say, they apparently do not get out of bed and work, as your Lordships do, of course—
§ LORD MARLEY—they remains in bed, in many cases. Therefore, if they wanted to make a purchase on Sunday they would either have the discomfort of getting up early and buying at the shop before two o'clock, or they would have to go without, and the particular Sunday traders would have a loss. Moreover, it is a fact that to-day the shops which are illegally open are open long after two o'clock on Sunday, and it is also a fact that all the exempted shops in the Bill will be open until seven or eight o'clock at night. That seems to be a reason why we should not make a special exception which would amount to an injustice to the people of Jewish faith who desire to close on Saturday and to keep open on Sunday. We hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, that the House will sweep aside the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, and that on the Committee stage we shall make the Amendments which we desire.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHMy Lords, as a supporter of the Bill I am anxious to direct the attention of the noble Marquess to certain provisions in the First Schedule particularly affecting the sale of fish. I should like to ask the noble Marquess why it has suddenly become so remarkably unsabbatarian to eat fish and chips on Sunday. I understand 269 that one may eat fish and chips in a restaurant, but not in what is alternatively described as a "fried fish and chip shop" and as a mere "fried fish shop." That is in lines 10 and 13 of the First Schedule. I should like to know what has happened to the chips in line 13! Apparently, also, one can eat almost any other kind of fish on a Sunday. One can eat oysters in an oyster bar, and apparently one can buy oysters under the Second Schedule; if I understand it rightly, one buys them before ten o'clock during the summer months on a Sunday. Is my interpretation of those provisions correct, and may I further ask the noble Marquess what is happening to that splendid institution of the shrimp tea on Sunday?
LORD MORRISMy Lords, at this late hour I desire to say only a word or two about this Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, will not think it presumption on my part if I support his Amendment. I do so for three reasons. First of all because I think that this Bill, if passed as it stands, offends against the principle of toleration for religious minorities which this House has carefully safeguarded, and I think there is no doubt whatever that if the Bill were to be passed as it stands at present it would inflict very great hardship on the orthodox Jewish trader. I am neither a Jew nor a shopkeeper, but I understand that the Jewish Sabbath starts at about five o'clock on Friday afternoon and goes on until late on Saturday night. If they cannot be open all day Sunday they are going to lose the cream of the week-end trade, which is rather more than fifty per cent. of their turnover. So much for the first objection.
Another thing I have against the Bill is that to me it savours of class legislation, of which we have such unfortunate examples in the licensing laws, the betting laws and the law relating to landlord and tenant. It is very difficult to argue that this type of Bill is not class legislation. It is not aimed, after all, at Harrods' or Selfridge's. It is aimed at the unfortunate down in the East End, whose profits I do not suppose are particularly large; and it seems to me that it is, I do not say hypocritical, but a little unfortunate that the noble Marquess representing the Home Office 270 should ask us to do away with these men's livelihood, or at any rate curtail it, while certain places which I will not mention in the West End are doing a roaring trade serving intoxicating liquors all night at fabulous prices to people who might be better occupied, and shopkeepers, publicans, innkeepers and so forth are not able to earn a living because of the restrictions imposed by the Government.
My third and final objection to this Bill—I have very nearly finished, my Lords—is that it seems to me to be part and parcel of the mania which has afflicted Governments since the War of issuing orders which prohibit this, that or the other thing. I now find that I cannot buy chocolates after eight o'clock, or it may be half-past eight; I cannot buy cigarettes after nine o'clock or half-past nine, and I cannot buy a drink after ten unless I go to those places to which I have already referred. I know this, however—though this is a well-worn topic and I do not claim any originality for touching on it to-day—that even the longest worm has a turning, and a time will come when the British public will get absolutely sick, as I am already, of this type of legislation, of which the Licensing Act, 1921, Section 9, is a classic illustration of the gross stupidity of the people who concoct these measures.
With the Coronation coming on next year our endeavours should be to make a success of ourselves as a nation of shopkeepers, now that we are no longer the workroom of the world. I think we should make every effort to attract people to this country, rather than to turn them away. The Belgian coast is rapidly becoming the poor man's Le Touquet, and this measure which proposes that the British public shall not be allowed to go and buy what they want on a Sunday must tend to keep visitors away from this country. We know that we cannot have dances and such things on Sunday, but if we go on closing everything we shall end by closing the churches, too. Therefore the Amendment has my warm personal support, and I think myself that the Bill ought not to be given a Second Reading.
§ LORD JESSELMy Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord who spoke last seriously supposes that this House is going to reject this Bill. In the first 271 place I would like to reiterate what has been already said of the pleasure given to us by the manner in which the noble Marquess introduced the Bill. It was a speech which thoroughly explained the Bill and the motives behind it which induced the promoters to bring it in. I have all my life been an advocate of one day's rest in seven, and I had the great pleasure of getting through another place a Bill on behalf of the police. I am therefore glad that there is a chance of that being extended to these deserving people, who do not get as much rest as we should desire. Of course there are Committee points, and no doubt it is possible to make fun of smaller points in the Bill, but I do not think it is quite right to say that this Bill has not been fully considered. As Lord Marley said, it has gone through considerable stages in another place, and now it is getting the advantage of being considered by a Second Chamber whose duty it is to revise. I am sure that a great many of the points which have been raised to-day are Committee points, and if this House does its duty, as it does on all occasions, the Bill will emerge in a form which is satisfactory to everybody.
There is one point on which I would challenge what Lord Marley said. Ho talked about six people in one room. A good deal of water has passed under the bridges since he was sitting on this side of the House, and during the interval there has been a rather comprehensive Housing Act passed into law. A great many slums have been abolished, and I hope that in the course of time they will all be abolished. There is just one other point, relating to the Jewish community. I have received, as no doubt a good many other noble Lords have received, a strongly-worded circular from the President of the Jewish Board of Deputies, which is a sort of parliament of the Jewish community. The only thing I would like to say is that what they ask for is that the time should be extended to six o'clock and not five o'clock.
§ LORD MARLEYPerhaps I ought to say that, like the noble Lord, I received a circular from the Jewish Board of Deputies, and I had a personal discussion with the President, and he agreed that in all the circumstances he would be prepared to accept five o'clock.
§ LORD JESSELI am glad to receive that correction. I only raised the matter 272 because I thought the noble Lord had not received the same document as I had, but I now understand that he has later information. I am quite content with the explanation. I hope that the Bill will get through, backed as it is by some powerful sections of the community. I do not think that when it has been passed into law the public will suffer the inconveniences which are feared in some quarters.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I desire very briefly to indicate the views of the Government in regard to this Bill. We are, I may say, in general sympathy with the objects of the measure, and we shall do our best on the later stages of the Bill to see if we can co-operate in making it a good, workable Act. I think the House should be reminded that in the event of your Lordships giving a Second Reading to the Bill this evening, it will be necessary to ask the House to agree to a number of Amendments at a later stage, and perhaps I might, before I deal with the Motion which Lord Mount Temple has put down, remind you of one or two remarks which were made in another place during the passage of the Bill. Lord Mount Temple read quotations from the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, but I think he left out the principal part of his speech on the Third Reading, when he said:
The Government are disposed to the view that the Bill, as it now stands, will give effect, in a reasonable and workable manner, to the principles approved by the House on Second Reading, and that the House would be justified in voting for the Motion for the Third Reading.He coupled with that a warning that when the Bill reached this House the Government would have to ask your Lordships to consider various Amendments, both of substance and of drafting.There is one other point which I would like to deal with, and that is the question of Jewish traders. Mention has been made by one or two noble Lords of a complaint that Jewish traders under this Bill could keep open on the Sabbath only till two o'clock. I would remind your Lordships that when the Bill was originally introduced the time was one o'clock. Since then it has been extended to two o'clock, but there was a very long and protracted discussion upon an Amendment to leave Jewish shops open on 273 Sunday till six o'clock. I think the general feeling in another place was against that proposal, and the Amendment was negatived without a Division. I will not say anything further on the matter at this stage; no doubt it will come up again in Committee.
With regard to the Amendment of my noble friend, suggesting that your Lordships should refer this Bill to a Committee of an unnamed sort, may I point out to him that this Bill comes to us after most careful investigation has been made by both the Home Office and the promoters into the requirements of the public and general traders alike, and I cannot help feeling that your Lordships will be well advised to take the discussion of the Committee stage down here, and not send the Bill upstairs to a Committee for prolonged discussion. I hope my noble friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment and to allow the Bill to proceed in the normal course. I must make one other remark. I understood Lord Marley to say, in the course of his remarks, that Socialists believed in complete liberty for the people. That is a remark which I cannot let pass without saying how surprised I am that after many years we should hear at last that they believe in the complete liberty of the subject and of the person.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to make one observation. I am speaking as President of the Zoological Society, and I gather from my noble friend Lord Dufferin that he is willing to introduce Amendments if necessary to enable the public who wish to do so to obtain goods at short notice on Sunday (they would not be any use to them on the Monday). I understood also from my noble friend Lord Munster that he proposes as the result of further consideration to move Amendments with a similar purpose. I want to ask him if the following matter might be taken into consideration. If your Lordships will look at page 14, where the list of goods exempted is given in the First Schedule, you will see that it includes "The sale of guide books, postcards, photographs and souvenirs at any gallery or museum…. or at any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, or at any aquarium." That gives protection to any zoological garden, for example, in the case of the sale of photographs. But a great many people like to come and bring their 274 films and take their own photographs. Very often they are so much attracted by the things they see for picture taking that they have not enough films and want to buy others to fit their cameras. I wonder therefore whether it would be possible to consider the addition to this Schedule of photographic films for cameras. There may be objections to that; I do not know; but I would ask my noble friend if he—and also the Home Office—would give the matter consideration.
§ LORD MOUNT TEMPLEMy Lords, the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has considerably altered my view. I did not realise, nor indeed had it been said, that we were going to have a real spate of Amendments to this Bill, as apparently we arc. Probably those Amendments will clear up my doubts, and, that being so, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MAEQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVAMy Lords, I do not think, after the general consensus of opinion, that I need say very much in reply. I thank the noble Lord for withdrawing his Amendment, and it is quite obvious that I could not deal with half his jokes to-day. I will reply as well as I can later on. I think that almost every point that was raised in the course of the debate was a Committee point, and it would be far better if I left everything that has been said to be dealt with on the Committee stage. If the Bill is read a second time, I think it is intended by those in authority to have the Committee stage on July 2, if that meets with the approval of your Lordships.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.