Lords Sitting of 18 February 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

THE UNITED KINGDOM AND U.N.E.S.C.O.
2.35 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:

(1) What benefit the United Kingdom receives from its Membership of U.N.E.S.C.O.

(2) Whether such benefit is worth the £535,572 which its membership of U.N.E.S.C.O. costs the United Kingdom in the two-year period 1955–56; and

(3) Whether the time has not now come for the United Kingdom to withdraw from membership of U.N.E.S.C.O. so that the money can either be saved or spent to greater advantage.]

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, membership of U.N.E.S.C.O. affords both to organisations and to individuals an opportunity for international exchange in education, science and the arts. It also offers scholarships, fellowships and other forms of assistance which are of particular value to British non-self-governing territories. In the view of Her Majesty's Government these benefits do not constitute the sole justification for membership, which must be considered more broadly as the participation by the United Kingdom in a relatively new method of international co-operation. The desirability or otherwise of membership of U.N.E.S.C.O. is, I should have thought, a somewhat wider question than can be usefully dealt with in Question and Answer, and in any event raises far wider issues than those implied in the third part of my noble friend's Question. But it is sufficient to state that for the
902
above reasons Her Majesty's Government have no present intention of withdrawal.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply. As the cost to the United Kingdom seems to rise steadily year by year, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will keep very close watch on this increasing cost?
VICOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, my lords.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Modification, at Christmastide, of requirements with respect to early closing days]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to leave out Clause 7 and to insert the following new clause:
Modification, at Christmastide, of requirements with respect to early closing days
"7. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions of this Act it shall not be necessary for days to be observed as respects a shop as early closing days in the three weeks of Christmastide."
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may briefly explain exactly what this clause does and how I am suggesting that it might be improved. Clause 7 lays down conditions under which shops may stay open on early closing days in the week or fortnight before Christmas. The effect of the clause would be that if a shop were closed on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, then it could be opened on the two early closing days in the fortnight before Christmas. If it were closed on only one of these days, it could be opened on only the early closing day in the week before Christmas. I am suggesting that shopkeepers should be free to open on three early closing days during the three weeks before Christmas. The position of shop assistants, which naturally we are all anxious to safeguard, is safeguarded, I think, by Clause 37; at least, the principle is there and the clause could be

903
amended suitably to extend the safeguard so that they would get an equivalent period of holiday after Christmas.
The advantages of my Amendment are two. First, it would somewhat relieve the Christmas shopping rush if the public were able to get a little more time for shopping during the three weeks before Christmas. Secondly, the clause as proposed by the Government would be extremely difficult to enforce. It would mean that local authority inspectors would have to spend more time watching shops to see that they were not open when they should be closed; and with their limited staff, local authorities would find that difficult. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must confess that I am rather attracted by the Amendment. There seems to be a great deal to be said for it. I have not my right honourable friend's authority to accept it on behalf of the Government, and perhaps the noble Earl would agree to withdraw it on the terms that I should report what has been said to my right honourable friend and we should consider it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said. Naturally, we should like to bring this matter up again on Report. Perhaps by that time, if the Government feel that they can accept the principle of the Amendment, they will put down an Amendment which the House will be able to consider. If that is not the procedure which the noble Viscount has in mind, perhaps he would be good enough to give me notice so that I can raise the matter again on the next stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope that that will be done; I feel sure that that course will be convenient to your Lordships. It is a small matter, but I think the noble Earl is right about this.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Compulsory change of early closing day falling on a non-business day
8. Where, in any week, a day which, as respects a shop, is (apart from this section) required by this Part of this Act to be observed as an early closing day is a non-business day, the day to be so observed, as respects the shop, in that week shall, instead of being that non-business day, be such other weekday (being a business day) as the occupier of the shop may select.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to delete all words after the first "non-business day" and to substitute
"it shall be the duty of the occupier of the shop to keep displayed in the prescribed manner in the shop while it is open during such week a notice in the prescribed form nominating the early closing day for that week and the day to be observed as the early closing day in that week shall be the day so nominated."
The noble Earl said: This is a less substantial Amendment. The proposal I make is that it will be more convenient for the public and easier to enforce the proposal in the clause if shopkeepers put up a notice during the week of the day they will observe as early closing day. This applies, of course, to the particular conditions envisaged in the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, leave out from the second "day" to end of line 36 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My right honourable friend and I do not like this Amendment. It is certainly true that a shopkeeper who puts up a notice would be conferring a benefit on the shopping public, but to support the notice with the sanctions of the criminal law, even in the interests of enforcement, seems to be a great deal too much trouble.
LORD DERWENT: Before my noble relative withdraws or presses his Amendment, I should like to ask whether the Government would at some stage in the Bill—I agree that too many notices are undesirable—put in an Amendment to enable the Minister at a later date, by regulation, to insist on the putting up of notices, if he thinks it necessary after the new Act has been working for some time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I shall have to look into that suggestion. Notices are required under some of the clauses, but the point dealt with in this

905
particular Amendment arises only when the early closing day falls on a non-business day. It was thought that, with this rare set of circumstances, it would be unfair to ask the shopkeeper, under pain of a fine, to put up an extra notice.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: What puzzles me is that the noble and learned Viscount has said that, in certain circumstances, he thinks notices should be put up in shops, and in that case, presumably, it would be an offence if the shopkeeper failed to do so. I think his ground for the view he has expressed is that it is likely to happen only rarely that an early closing day falls on a Bank Holiday' or other holiday, and therefore he does not think it necessary for the shopkeeper to put up a notice. I find it a little difficult to accept that line of argument. However, if the noble and learned Viscount feels strongly about it, I shall not press the Amendment, although I should be glad if he would consider the point in order that the general line about notification should be the same throughout the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think there is any inconsistency in my attitude. Under Clause 3, for instance, it is necessary for a shopkeeper, if he wishes to exercise certain options conferred upon him by the early closing day provisions in that clause, to put up a notice in order to do so. The noble Earl will remember that on the previous day allotted to this Bill we discussed his and, I think, Lord Milvertort's series of Amendments in the interests of enforcement, which, if they had been passed, would have required a shopkeeper not only to put up a notice in his shop but to notify the local authority of his intention. Of that pair of options the Government preferred the notice as being the less onerous on the shopkeeper. Here we deal with the only occasion when he changes his early closing day because the early closing day is a non-business day. We think that that happens relatively seldom, and to make him put up a special notice on that occasion, under pain of fine, is probably pressing him too hard. I do not think I should plead guilty to inconsistency here.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I understand the argument of the noble and learned Viscount, but
906
I should have thought that he would be one of the first to say he is anxious not to have statutory provisions unless they can be enforced. This is a clause which gives to a shopkeeper his own choice in a particular week as to which day he will close. There may be shopkeepers who will evade the law altogether, by opening on all the days they wish. You cannot expect local authorities to take up the burden of enforcement of laws passed by Parliament unless reasonable provision is made so that they can conduct a check. I think the Government ought to make up their mind that this is not just a foible of a member of the Opposition, but is a position taken up strongly by a prominent local authority.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The last thing I should do would be to treat any Amendment moved by the noble Earl as a foible. I hope he does not think that I was dealing with his Amendment in a cavalier fashion. However, I must adhere to my position. If the early closing day happens to be a non-business day, even on the score of enforcement, I doubt whether the local authority would go round all the shops to see if they had got notices up, which is what they would have to do to take advantage of this Amendment. On the other hand, I am certain that in any normal town, if the shop remained open every day of the week, the kind neighbours of the shopkeeper would soon inform the local authority about him. As nobody knows better than the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, enforcement of these closing provisions largely depends on information supplied by rival traders. I think he can rest assured that, in the rare circumstances of this case, this will probably do the trick.
THE EURL OF LISTOWEL: The noble and learned Viscount has been so generous about the more important Amendment that I do not wish to be churlish in pressing this one, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Voluntary change of early closing day in, or in week before, week in which non-business day falls
9.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, where in a week in which a day is, as respects a shop, required by

907
this Part of this Act to be observed as an early closing day, a weekday, other than that so required to be so observed. is a non-business day, then, in any proceedings taken against a person in respect of an offence consisting in a contravention of the proviso to subsection (1) of section one of this Act with reference to the shop in relation either to that week or the immediately preceding week, it shall be a defence for him to prove—

(a) that the shop was closed all day on the non-business day; and

(b) that, in the week to which the proceedings relate, on a day other than that required by this Part of this Act to be observed as respects the shop as an early closing day, and being a business day, there had been complied with as respects the shop the requirements of this Part of this Act which fall to be so complied with on a day so required to be so observed; and

(c) that, in the week to which the proceedings relate, on the day so required to be so observed. there had been complied with as respects the shop the requirements of this Part of this Act which would have fallen to be so complied with if that day had not been so required to be so observed;

but where, as regards one of two successive weeks, a person avails himself, with reference to a shop, of the defence provided by the foregoing provisions of this section, that defence shall not be available with reference to that shop as regards the other of those weeks except by reliance upon a non-business day (being a weekday) other than that previously relied upon.
(2) The defence provided by the foregoing subsection shall not be available in proceedings for an offence consisting in a contravention of the proviso to subsection (I) of section one of this Act in any of the three weeks of Christmastide.
2.50 p.m.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, to delete Clause 9. The noble Lord said: It will be observed that in asking that this clause be deleted I have not gone the length of offering anything to take its place. My purpose in putting down the Amendment was to tell the Minister that I find the clause incomprehensible, and in asking that it should be deleted I am giving him the option of finding other words to express what is meant by the clause. Your Lordships have not sought to alter the wording of this clause. If that gives an indication that the clause is understood and is fully agreed, I congratulate your Lordships most heartily, because I am not in that happy position. In the past many of us, if not here, then in another place, have inveighed against the iniquities of Parliamentary draftsmanship, and tried to simplify the way in which Bills were framed. That was my sole purpose in moving that this clause be deleted.
It will be observed that there are other thoughts along that line, because Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 in the names of other noble Lords make an attempt at simplifying this particular clause. I think a fairly laudable attempt is being made, and I should like to see the noble Viscount take all this to avizandum, and find appropriate words which all of us can understand and which would not cause any great difficulty even to lawyers, some of whom have found the greatest difficulty in comprehending the clause as it appears now in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 9.—(Lord Mathers.)
LORD MILVERTON: I was glad to listen to the noble Lord who moved his Amendment, because I have to admit that I, too, like many others, have found the drafting of Clause 9 difficult to understand. I hesitated to sponsor the proposed new clause which appears under my name on the Paper, because the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, told us, on the first day of this Committee stage, of the extremely delicate balance which had been achieved in this Bill by the draftsmen. I do not question that for a moment, but it has left me so delicately balanced in mid-air that I have no understanding of what this clause means at all, although I think I know what it intends to mean.
There are apparently three obligations in regard to the closing of shops—namely, normally 7 p.m., with power for the local authority to prescribe an earlier time, not being earlier than 6 p.m. This will apply to every weekday except the early closing day and the late closing day. Secondly, there is the late day closing at 8 p.m., or such earlier time as may be fixed by the local authority, but not being earlier than one hour after the normal time. Therefore, if the local authority have fixed an earlier time than 7 p.m. for the normal closing, on a late day it will not be later than an hour after that. There is only one late day a week, and the local authority are to make an order specifying a pair of weekdays for the late day, and the shopkeeper can, I gather, select one of them. Then, thirdly, on early closing day shops must close at 1 p.m. In this matter, the local authority may specify two weekdays, one, except for Jews, being Saturday, and the occupier

909
of the shop may select one and must keep a notice displayed nominating the day selected. This will be only one day in a week.
Turning now to Clause 9, I would point out that subsection (2) says the clause shall not apply at all to any of "the three weeks of Christmastide"—that expression being defined in Clause 63 to mean the week in which Christmas Day falls, the week immediately before, and the week immediately after. The clause applies to a week in which there is a non-business day other than Sunday—"non business day" being defined in Clause 64 to mean:

"(a) Sunday, Good Friday and Christmas Day;

(b) a bank holiday;

(c) a day appointed by Royal Proclamation as a public fast or thanksgiving day."

Perhaps, in view of its rarity, we may neglect the third one. As Christmas Day, Boxing Day and all Sundays are excluded from the operation of this clause, this leaves only as a non-business day to which the clause relates, Good Friday and three Bank Holidays—namely, Easter Monday, Whit Monday and the first Monday in August.
The clause provides, in effect, that, when there is in a week Good Friday or any of the three Bank Holidays then, if the shop is not closed early on the early closing day in that week, or in the week immediately preceding, it shall be a defence to proceedings for the failure to close for the shopkeeper to show one of these things: (a) that the shop was closed throughout the whole of the non-business day; (b) that another day—that is, not the proper early closing day—has been observed as early closing day, that being either in the week which contains the non-business day or in the preceding week; and (c) that on the proper early closing day the normal provisions as to closing (that is, 7 or 6 p.m.) and as to late closing (that is, 8 or 7 p.m.) have been complied with. If the shopkeeper decides to disregard the obligation for early closing, not in the week which includes the non-business day but in the previous week, and he avails himself of this defence by early closing on another day in the preceding week, the defence will not be available to him if he wanted to keep open on the proper early closing day in that week.
910
This can perhaps be better appreciated by the following example, on the assumption that the normal early closing day is Saturday. First, take the week including Whit Monday. He would probably keep open all day on the previous Saturday, and the clause would then provide him with sufficient defence; but he could not, of course, keep the shop open all day on another early closing day. Secondly, take the case of Easter, where there are two non-business days in successive weeks. In that case he could keep his shop open all day on the Saturday after and the Thursday before Good Friday, and the clause would provide him with an adequate defence. Apparently, the clause effects the intended object, but it seems to me undoubtedly to be very involved. I suggest that a simpler form of clause would be to follow as near as may be to Clause 8—the compulsory change of early closing on a non-business day—and to have it worded much as in the Amendment which is down in my name on the paper, to substitute for the present Clause 9 the following words:
Voluntary change of early closing day in, or in week before, week in which non-business day falls
(".—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, when in any week, other than one of the three weeks of Christmastide, there is a non-business day being a week-day the occupier of a shop may at his option substitute for the day in that week to be observed under the other provisions of this Act as an early closing day another day in that week or in the immediately preceding week and the provisions of this Act relating to an early closing lay shall apply accordingly.
(2) Provided that the powers contained in this section shell not be exercisable in reference to a shop unless—

(a) that shop is kept closed all day on the non-business day; and

(b) the occupier of the shop gives notice in writing to the local authority informing them of the day which he proposes to be observed as the early closing day, that notice to be given at least seven days before that day.")

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think it would be for the general convenience of the Committee if we had a general discussion on these Amendments, including the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
LORD BURDEN: May I say a few words in support of the new clause mentioned by my noble friend Lord Milverton? I must confess that I have read Clause 9 forward several times. I have also tried reading it backwards, but

911
I still find it, as my noble friend said, quite incomprehensible. I think, too, that I am justified in saying that it has puzzled some of the keenest men in local government service whose job it will be to try to interpret this Bill if and when it passes into law. It has also puzzled their skilled advisers. Therefore, I would ask whether the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will give us some explanation of it, whether it would not be possible for the clause to be redrafted in such a way as to be understandable by ordinary people whose job it will be to administer it. If the noble and learned Viscount will do that, we shall be grateful. We shall be even more grateful if he can do it in rhymed verse.
3.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not sure that I can undertake the latter task. I think I shall prefer free verse on this occasion. I confess that I have more than a little sympathy with noble Lords who have spoken. I do not take the view that this clause is incomprehensible. On the other hand, I think that my noble friend Lord Milverton succeeded in understanding it—
LORD BURDEN: I know.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: —and, therefore, ex hypothesi it is not incomprehensible. I frankly admit that I started with the feeling that the clause as drafted was highly inelegant, and it was only with great difficulty that the Parliamentary draftsman convinced me that, so far from being inelegant, the clause was really a triumph of delicately balanced draftsmanship. I hope to 'persuade your Lordships of that, and that although there is a way—I will indicate to your Lordships what it might be—in which it could be improved, it is only by altering the sense.
Basically speaking, the difficulty which is faced by the draftsman is this. What he wants to say is that there is a shopping rush before Good Friday, before Easter Monday and before Whit Monday. In the light of that shopping rush, it is desirable to alter the early closing day. If the non-business day, the dies non operanda, is a Friday, naturally the shopkeeper will have his early day in the week; but if it is a Monday, he will almost certainly have it in the week before, because it would be rather difficult not to. That is the rather simple, human
912
situation with which he is dealing, and he does not want to be prosecuted, whichever he does. The elegant way to do that, from the point of view of draftsmanship, would be to tell him that that is what he can do, and that it will be all right if he does it. But, when the draftsman is faced with that apparently simple task, he discovers an awkward fact. In the case, particularly, of the Monday (I think the point would apply mutatis mutandis in the other case, but I will take the Monday), what the draftsman wants to do is to insist, as a condition of allowing the shopkeeper to change his early closing day, that he really does play fair; in other words, that he keeps shut on the Monday. I hope that so far I am being followed. He does not get the privilege of changing his early closing day if he keeps open on the Monday. That is the idea that the draftsman has in mind, and it seems to me, within reason, to be a very good idea.
It would be a simple piece of draftsmanship to tell a shopkeeper, "You can change your early closing day in the week preceding the week containing Whit Monday and get away with it." He would simply say "It will be lawful for you to change your early closing day in the week preceding the week containing the non-business day." But if that were put in the Bill, the effect would be that the shopkeeper could change his early closing day and then remain open on the Monday; and that, of course, is not what he draftsman intends to achieve. I will come back to that point in a moment, because it may be that this is the point at which one could acquire simplification at the expense of laxity.
In order to achieve what he means to achieve, the draftsman has to do an inelegant thing, that is, instead of rendering it unlawful for the shopkeeper to change his early closing day in the week preceding the non-business day he has to provide that, if he afterwards gets prosecuted for doing so, he shall have a defence. From the point of view of elegance, and from the point of view of the comprehensibility and intelligibility of the clause, that is where he goes wrong. It is at that stage that the clause becomes difficult to understand. Instead of saying: "You may do this," he says: "If you are prosecuted for doing it, you shall have a defence." It is intrinsically

913
an inelegant thing to do, and that—I have spent some time thinking about this—is the point at which the draftsman appears to go wrong.
The reason he has to do it is this. If nothing were done, what the shopkeeper would be prosecuted for, if he were prosecuted, would be for having his early closing day on the Thursday instead of, say, on the Wednesday. If he chooses to change it in that way, he is committing his offence on the Wednesday when he stays open, the Wednesday being the early closing day. Whether that is an offence or not at the time when it is committed depends, not on anything which has happened so far but on what is going to happen in the following week—or, rather, on what is not going to happen in the following week, namely, his not opening the shop on the non-business day in the following week. I hope I am making myself plain.
It is an extremely complicated piece of legal reasoning, but I think it is perfectly intelligible wording, although I must confess that it was not entirely plain to me until I addressed myself to this Amendment. What the Parliamentary draftsman has persuaded me of is that if the clause is to say everything that is desired, it is necessary to set about it in the way in which he has done. Personally, being inclined to be lax, I should be disposed to run the risk of the shopkeeper's keeping open on Whit Monday or Easter Monday, and say simply that he may change his early closing day in the preceding week or to a non-business day the same week. There would be a good deal of sense in that. I will consider it. But the price one would have to pay for that is that in the odd case in which a shopkeeper does not play fair—that is to say, when he keeps his shop open on the non-business day—he cannot be prosecuted for changing his early closing day. I hope I have now made the matter clear.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new clause:
Voluntary change of early closing day in, or in week before, week in which non-business day falls
"9.—(l) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section where in a week in which a day is as respects a shop required by this Part of this Act to be observed as an early closing day a week-day other than that
914
so required to be so observed is a non-business day, then, the occupier of the shop may keep displayed in The prescribed manner while the shop is open during such a week a notice in the prescribed form nominating a day being a business day as the early closing day for that week and the day to be observed as the early closing day in that week shall be the day so nominated.
(2) The provisions of the foregoing subsection shall not apply to the three weeks of Christmastide."
The noble Earl said: We are all deeply indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for that really unique exposition of an extraordinarily complicated clause. I think it is not casting any slur at all on the intelligence of the ordinary person, the shopkeeper or the layman, to say that, when studying this clause, it might have been more difficult for them to elucidate but for the simplicity and clarity shown by the noble and learned Viscount opposite. If that is the case, then surely there is a good deal of substance in what he said about the desirability of simplicity, even if it means a certain kind of laxity, because it is essential that the provisions of this Bill should be understood. Thai was made perfectly plain by the Gower; Committee.
I accept gratefully the suggestion of the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, that we should discuss together all three Amendments to this clause. I do not propose to say anything about mine because it is so similar to that which precedes it in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Milverton and Lord Burden. There is only one small difference and I will not go into that. But if the noble and learned Viscount would be good enough to think about the drafting of this clause—so to speak, the techniques, accepting the difficulty which the draftsman has pointed out—between now and the Report stage, that would perhaps give the Committee chance to draft a simpler form of words which would achieve the object which we all have in mind.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will certainly undertake that that shall be done, but I cannot say what the consequences of the consideration will be. In our view it is vital that the right to change the early closing day in the week preceding should be retained, and I think noble Lords would probably be of the same opinion as we are. I do not myself see that it is vital to guard against the odd shopkeeper who keeps his shop open on

915
a non-business day, but it may be that those who are responsible more directly than I am for administering the law will say that it is, in which case we shall not be able to do much about it. I know that what your Lordships have said will be studied carefully. I hope I have said enough to show that I have a great deal of sympathy with it.
LORD MATHERS: I realise that I am up against a great difficulty in seeking to contend with such an adversary as the noble and learned Viscount, and I certainly accept the spirit in which he has looked at these Amendments. So far as I am concerned, I am happy to leave the matter in the position in which he has asked that it should be left—that he may have a look at it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILVERTON: I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the amazing lucidity with which he has thrown light on this matter. It is quite true that the poet talked about the "life that never was on sea or land." Obviously, he had never met the noble Viscount! I have great pleasure in accepting his assurances and do not propose to move my Amendment.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Sales for which shops may remain open after 1 p.m. on early closing days
10. Notwithstanding the proviso to subsection (1) of section one of this Act, a shop may, on a day required by this Part of this Act to be observed as respects the shop as an early closing day.—
(b) remain open for the sale of goods of any kind specified in Part II of that Schedule during any period during which it could, without contravention of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, remain open for the sale of goods of that kind if that day wore not so required to be so observed.
3.14 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, after "Act," where that word first occurs, to insert:
"but subject to compliance by the occupier with such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations"
The noble Lord said: This clause enables a shop to remain open on an early closing day for the sale until two o'clock
916
in the afternoon of fried fish and fried potato chips, and later still for the sale of the goods set out in Part II of the First Schedule to this Bill. It is, of course, the case that shops which sell the goods referred to may also ordinarily sell a much wider range. Clearly, it is difficult to control the sale of goods other than the permitted goods on early closing day. If a customer can see something which he wants in a shop which is not closed against him, naturally, it seems unreasonable to him that he is not permitted to buy it.
The regulations which are at present in force under the Shops Act, 1950, provide that the occupier of a mixed shop has to display appropriate notices and to refrain from exhibiting goods in a class not permitted to be sold. This requirement helps to explain the position to the customer and to put the temptation both to him and to the shopkeeper out of the way. Experience suggests that the average law-abiding shopkeeper is not usually averse to the exhibition of such notices, as it assists him and his assistants and the public to be readily aware of the transactions permissible on early closing days. Many favour the use of the notices because it helps to convince the customers that the refusal to sell certain goods is not just wilful discrimination on the part of the shopkeeper. But the fact that a notice is displayed also strengthens the evidence in cases of contravention of the law. I understand that the present Bill will have the effect of causing the existing regulations to cease to operate, and since I think they serve a useful purpose the Amendment proposed is drafted to permit the Secretary of State to make similar regulations in the future. May I repeat, that the idea of the Amendment is to try to assist in the operation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 31, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Milverton.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is an Amendment which I am sorry to say we do not like quite so much. I fully appreciate the argument in favour of it. I think two points can be made in favour of it—both legitimate points. The first is that under the existing law, which it is the real object of the Amendment to preserve, the local authority is more able to enforce it; and the second is that the shopkeeper has a sort of moral

917
cushion to rest upon when he says, "No," to his customer. He can point to a list of goods which he cannot sell, and he may even be required by regulation to hide up those goods lest his customer goes mad with desire. But, on the whole, we think that this Bill is a liberalising improvement of the law. We have been accused in some quarters of imposing additional restrictions. This is a case in which we are reducing the restrictions and the burdens on shopkeepers.
We understand that amongst the enforcement it authorities there is a difference of opinion as to the value of the existing regulations. I am told that the London County Council have expressed the view that they are of no real value, and I am afraid that the requirements to cover up or hide away the forbidden goods are often ignored in practice and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce them. If they were enforced it would probably impose an intolerable burden on the shopkeeper. Therefore we think that the balance of advantages is against this Amendment, and we would ask the Committee not to pass it.
LORD MILVERTON: I thank the noble Viscount for the consideration which lie has given to this Amendment. I shall not press it, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(c) remain open until seven o'clock in the evening for the sale of mechanically propelled vehicles."
The noble Lord said: I want the help of the noble Viscount here. I put forward this Amendment, hoping that he will accept it, for these reasons. A place where a mechanically propelled vehicle is sold, although technically a retail shop, can range from some of the most elaborate showrooms such as one sees in Piccadilly or in the main street of any of our large provincial towns, right down to a small space in a service station where one or two vehicles are displayed. In the Second Schedule to this Bill the Committee will find these words:
"Transactions permissible in Great Britain at any time on weekdays and in England and Wales at any time on Sundays
11. The sale of parts of, or accessories to, or fuel or lubricants for, vessels, aircraft,
918
mechanically propelled vehicles, cycles, or agricultural machinery or equipment."
In other words, at any time of the day or night for seven days a week service is available in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles. At one time I thought of moving the insertion of a provision in regard to the sale of mechanically propelled vehicles, so as to get complete exemption; but on the other hand I do not want to see motor vehicle showrooms open on Sunday. I do not want to see these used-car parks that one may see all over the country doing business on a Sunday, as they do to-day—as the noble and learned Viscount no doubt knows, in contravention of the law. Perhaps when this measure becomes an Act the law will be more rigidly enforced.
There is a case to be made, however—the case which I seek to make by this Amendment—in relation to the opening on the early closing day only of a motor vehicle showroom or a place open for the sale of mechanically propelled vehicles. I do not seek to have them open any later than 7 o'clock except for the one day at 3 o'clock, but I do seek to exempt them from having a closing half-day. My reason is that I feel that that provision would be unenforceable. The noble and learned Viscount will know that a motor vehicle showroom or a place at which motor vehicles are sold is not, strictly speaking, operated as a retail shop. It does not employ shop assistants. I suppose 90 per cent. of the mechanically propelled vehicles sold in this country are sold away from the showroom.
I will tell the noble and learned Viscount why I say that the provision would be as unenforceable as it is to-day, unless, of course, the noble and learned Viscount prays in aid Clause 12. That, again, is very difficult to enforce. As I interpret the clause, it means that no article cap be sold away from the retail shop on a day or during a time when that retail shop is supposed to be closed. If I were a salesman in a motor-vehicle shop and wished to sell the noble and learned Viscount a motor car upon the half-day on which that shop was closed, and took him to a neighbouring golf course, could then self it to him? That is the dilemma in which one is placed when one tries to apply this Bill to an article which is mobile and can be, and is, taken away,

919
to be sold, from the place where it sometimes rests. I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that the law could not be enforced.
Perhaps I could have some free legal advice from the noble and learned Viscount. If he gives me a verbal order on a golf-course for a motor-car, outside the hours which are specified here, could he, if he wanted to, repudiate the verbal contract next day on the ground that I had sold him the vehicle in contravention of the law? I would suggest that, on the grounds that I have set out, it would be advisable for this Amendment to be male to the Bill. One last ground upon which I would advocate its acceptance is that people come in from the country on Saturday afternoon to do just this kind of transaction. No man ever buys a motorcar without his wife, and very likely all his family, with him; he probably gets into hot water if he does. The half day on which all other shops are shut is the very day when mast shopkeepers and assistants transact their business of this kind.
May I ask the noble and learned Viscount one last question? I have put down the words "mechanically propelled vehicles", so I am afraid that the noble and learned Viscount or myself will have to find a definition. Would he tell me whether he thinks that within the phrase "mechnically propelled vehicles" one would include a trailer or a caravan? Admittedly it is a type of vehicle propelled by a mechanically propelled vehicle; but would it fall within the category of a mechanically propelled vehicle here? I wish to include it because it is as necessary to have such vehicles included in this clause as to have the Amendment in the Schedule I have just mentioned, for the reason that it is as necessary for spare parts to be obtainable for a trailer or a caravan as for the mechanically propelled vehicle by which it is being pulled. I hope that I have made myself clear to the noble and learned Viscount. My object here is to exempt premises from which mechanically propelled vehicles are sold from the obligation to have an early closing day, so that they may remain open until 7 o'clock and be exempt from the early closing regulation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 42, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD BURDEN: The noble and learned Viscount, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, promised to look again at this matter to see what could be done in regard to it. In principle I agree with this Amendment, but, as I read it, it would be limited in extent to the number of shops that could be open. It would justify only shops which were owner-occupied. I am very sorry I have jumped up a little too early. I beg your Lordships' pardon.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As the Committee will remember, the noble Lord who has just sat down was perfectly right. We made an exception in the case of sweets on the ground that it was the subject of what I have learned to call the "impulse" trade, affecting people who see a sweet shop and must rush in to buy a bar of chocolate because they cannot resist the impulse, and who, if they do not do so, will not get the impulse again at breakfast time next morning. I hope those who wish to buy motor vehicles are not, as a rule, victims of an impulse of a similar irresistible and non-recurring kind. I am not sure that the same case exists for this Amendment as existed in relation to that for sweets, but there are some reasons for agreeing to consider the Amendment.
Garages can remain open, owing to the operation of the clause in the Second Schedule to which Lord Lucas of Chilworth drew attention, and transactions for the sale of cars are of a kind perhaps unusual in ordinary shopping. It might well be that if a garage was open for the sale of petrol and it happened to have a motor show-room attached that it would be difficult to prevent the sale, in one way or another, of motor cars on early closing day but during the garage's opening time. I think, therefore, that, on the grounds of enforceability, there is an arguable case, though, of course, many motor show-rooms are not garages. Indeed, there are in the suburbs, as I think the noble Lord himself said, vast car parks which are hardly motor showrooms but at which transactions of this kind often take place. Therefore, we are disposed to consider this Amendment. We have so far had no pressure from the owners of motor show-rooms or, indeed, of these car parks, for permission

921
to open on early closing day. We would seek to explore the ground a little more fully before we committed ourselves. We are certainly willing to consider this matter and to consider it more fully. I, personally, do not know whether it will be possible to frame an Amendment which will serve, but I am hopeful that we shall be able to meet the noble Lord some way. Perhaps he can accept that assurance.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, and I willingly leave the matter to him. Might I, at this point, say that I am seeking here to do two things. I seek to allow opening on the half-day, but l do not wish the sale of motor vehicles to be concurrent with the opening of the service place on Sunday. If an Amendment can be framed to ensure that, I shall be grateful. As regards the noble Viscount's statement that no pressure has been brought to bear upon him, may I say that perhaps those concerned paid me the compliment of thinking that my pressure would be sufficient—which evidently it is going to be. I thank the noble Viscount for what he has said, and I am going to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. Before doing so, however, I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he will look into the matter which I have raised with respect to trailers and caravans—in other words, vehicles which can be drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle.
VISCOUNT HA1LSHAM: I ought not to allow myself to be drawn at all on the question of the law by the noble Lord's attractive questions, hut, personally, I do not think there is any doubt at all that a caravan or a trailer is not a mechanically propelled vehicle. If it were desired to include such vehicles in an Amendment, it would be necessary to do so in some other form of words. As I say, I personally have no doubts upon this point although I have riot taken advice upon it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. Perhaps he will consider some wording to add the classes of vehicles I have mentioned to the mechanically propelled vehicles which are now specified in the Amendment.
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Special provisions with respect to the sale of certain refreshments for off-consumption
11.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in section one of this Act or a requirement subsisting by virtue of paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of section four thereof, a shop which is registered under this section may—

(a) on any weekday, be open at any time for the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in the shop, of refreshments to which this section applies, other than fried fish or fried potato chips;

(b) on a weekday other than one required by this Part of this Act to be observed as respects the shop as an early closing day, be open at any time for the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in the shop, of fried fish and fried potato chips or either of them.

3.34 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved in subsection (1), after the first word "shop" to insert "the occupier of". The noble Lord said: This clause attempts to deal to some extent with the case of the mixed shop, the shop where varying types of retail trade are carried on, for some of which later hours are permitted than for others. The clause lays down, as one of the particular matters of importance, that the local authority have to be satisfied that it is the applicant's intention that the business carried on at the shop should consist"as to the whole or a substantial part thereof" in the sale of food. This Amendment seeks to provide net for registering the shop—as has to be done under the clause—but for registering the occupier.
The point is that, in the case of these mixed shops, when a shop changes hands the type of trade often changes also to some extent. It seems to me to be more reasonable, therefore, that the occupier should be the person registered, so that, when a shop changes hands, the new occupier is able to apply for registration. Under subsection (3) of the clause there is machinery whereby the local authority can cancel the registration. It does not seem to me to be very reasonable that a new occupier should have his registration cancelled when he, as an occupier, has never applied for registration, since it is the shop that is registered. The object

923
of the Amendment is to make the occupier the registered person, instead of the shop the registered thing. There is a good precedent for this in the present Shops Act, Section 53 (8), by which, in the case of Jewish shops, it is the occupiers, who are registered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, after ("shop") insert ("the occupier of").—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I find this a very difficult matter, but we should prefer to resist this Amendment. As my noble friend has indicated, the object of these Amendments—the one which he has just moved is the first of a series—is to provide for the registration under Clauses 11 and 18 of occupiers of shops, instead of registration of premises. The noble Lord has in mind, in particular, the case where an occupier changes. It may or may not be the case, when an occupier changes, that the business carried on will be the same business; hut, on the whole, we consider that to cause a new registration to be made every time the occupation of a shop changes is to impose an additional and unnecessary burden on occupiers of premises.
Under subsection (3) of the clause, it is open to the local authority to cancel the registration of a shop in the circumstances there set out, if they are satisfied that the business is no longer correctly described there. Quite apart from the additional burden on the shopkeeper, we believe that it would certainly be complicated, and might even not be practicable, to amend Clause 11 so as to relate the registration of a person to the trade carried on at a particular shop. Once one starts categorising particular trades carried on by particular persons, one gets into very deep water indeed. We feel, therefore, that it would be better to keep to the general scheme of the closing hours provisions of the Bill, which generally relate to shops, rather than to shopkeepers.
Of course, this involves some difference between the shopkeeper whose premises are registered and the trader who carries on his business from a barrow or van, which is in a different position. But the reason for the difference lies in the difference in the difficulties of enforcement. The difficulty of enforcement in relation to barrows is to find the barrows
924
at any particular time, because they move, about. Shops do not. The only difficulty of enforcement in relation to shops is that there are so many of them. On the whole, therefore, we should prefer to keep the existing provisions and not accept my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I thank my noble friend but, with great respect, I think he is making heavy weather of the matter. He speaks as if shops change their owners every week. The fact remains that under the clause a substantial part of the business of mixed shops has to be in the sale of food, and to require the new occupier who buys a shop to apply for registration does not seem to me to be any hardship. I would ask my noble friend to look at this matter again. I am not going to press it because, although I do not think so, he may be right. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to add to subsection (2):
"The provisions of this section shall apply to persons carrying on retail trade or business from stalls or vehicles situate on particular sites and to itinerant traders selling goods by retail."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to provide that traders from fixed pitches and itinerant traders should also have to be registered. I should like to deal with the two separately. Under Clause 12 (3) the fixed pitch trader will be permitted to sell articles of food after the general closing hour without having to establish that a substantial part of his business is the sale of food. I suggest that it is only fair that the trader selling from a fixed pitch should not be able to undertake what I consider to be unfair competition when it is perfectly easy, if he is on a fixed pitch, to have him registered. The trader from a fixed stall or pitch also has an opportunity of voting in any poll affecting his class of business, if he has a pitch for not less than six months. I do not see how, without registration, it is going to be established that a trader has been there for six months. These fixed pitches compete seriously with small shops and for that reason I think that they should be registered.
I know that the case of the itinerant vendor is more difficult. I should not like to lose this Amendment just for the sake of the itinerant trader, but many of them

925
have the same round, particularly in country areas, and I do not think it would be very difficult to have them registered. Again, if my noble friend will not accept the registration of the itinerant trader, may I ask him to accept registration of the Eked pitch trader? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 27, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Derwent.)
LORD BURDEN: I am rather interested in the application the noble Lord will make of this Amendment, if it is accepted. For instance, how would he apply it to the man selling baked chestnuts or baked potatoes in winter time? The baked potato seller used to be a feature of London life years ago, though he is not so much a feature now. And what about those places known to people who keep late hours in London as coffee stalls, where one can get a hunk of bread and butter and a hot saveloy in the early hours of the morning: are they the sort of places we want to have registered so that restrictions shall apply to them? How would local authorities set about the job of controlling the baked chestnut man?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: All this rather illustrates the difficulties of draftsmanship. I gather that my noble friend's Amendment relates only to stalls or vehicles. Front my recollection of the seller of baked potatoes. I am not sure what he sold his potatoes from, but if it was a cart, which I suspect is usual, then his case would come under the provisions regarding a vehicle. If, on the other hand, it was a table, I do not think that it could be called either a stall or a vehicle. At any rate, I do not feel that it falls to me to interpret the Amendment, since my right honourable friend and I are inclined again to resist it. The bent of our minds is in favour of freedom, whenever freedom can be observed. Stalls, vehicles and tables, and everything else, are within the ambit of Clause 12, and I do not think it is necessary to register any of them, the vehicles because registration will not help us to find them and the stalls because it will not add much to what we already have.
LORD DERWENT: Again, this is not an Amendment I am going to press, but the fact remains that fixed pitch trading
926
has a detrimental effect in certain areas on small shops, who cannot compete on level terms. When it comes to the man who has a round, there are difficulties, but a coffee stall is usually a fixed pitch. I would ask my noble friend to look at this point again, because there is a considerable amount of ill feeling about it. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I hope that the noble Viscount will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and say that he will have another look at this matter. I have not well enough prepared myself to support the amendments, but I have a good deal of sympathy with them, and I would welcome the chance of some consultation elsewhere between now and the Report stage. I should be grateful to the noble Viscount if he were able to say that he would have another look at the matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I know that what has been said will reach my right honourable friend. I hope that it will not be thought that I was adopting an intransigent or dogmatic view towards either of these Amendments. I am hound to say that the strong bent of my mind is against them and I do not want to hold out any hopes that there will be any change in that bent, but I know that what has been said so well and so moderately by my noble friend and by the noble Viscount opposite will be conveyed to my right honourable friend and we shall certainly have what is said in mind if we come to a change of opinion. I would be more than glad to do a favour to my noble friend or to the noble Viscount or to those whose views they represent.
Clause 11 agreed to.
3.49 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of his intention to move a new clause making special provisions for shops selling table waters, sweets, et cetera. The noble Lord said: In view of what the noble Viscount said on the first Amendment, I do not propose to worry your Lordships even by moving this Amendment.
Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Offences under Part I]:
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) In the event of a failure to notify the local authority as required by subsection (8) of section two of this Act or by that subsection as applied by subsection (6) of section three thereof, the occupier of the shop shall be guilty of an offence."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment really relates to an Amendment which I moved on Clause 2. The noble and learned Viscount was kind enough to say he would bring that to the notice of his right honourable friend, and on that assurance I withdrew the Amendment. Clause 16 sets out the circumstances in which failure to observe the preceding provisions of the Bill creates an offence. The Amendment proposed merely noted the creation of an offence in not notifying the local authority, which was the Amendment I moved to Clause 2. As the previous Amendment was withdrawn, naturally I shall ask leave to withdraw this one, on, I hope, the same assurance from the noble and learned Viscount that the attention of his right honourable friend will be drawn to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a word or two in support of this Amendment. The local authorities attach some importance to this Amendment, linking up as it does with the previous one. We feel that the Bill should be clear as to the position of local authorities and should give them guidance as to their work and the authority for them to carry out the provisions of the Bill. The noble Viscount promised consideration of the previous Amendment, and I hope that this one will receive the same consideration. I think it is necessary to impress upon those concerned that the local authorities feel keenly that this and the previous Amendment are necessary if they are to do their duty under the Bill, when it becomes an Act.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have not considered this Amendment separately from the other, because my view was that if the other Amendment had been accepted it would have been logical and, indeed, necessary, to insert this Amendment in the Bill in order to give some
928
sanction for what was proposed; and if the other Amendment were dropped and finally not included in the Bill, this one would be unnecessary. I had therefore assumed that my assurance which covered the former Amendment covered this one. With that assurance, I hope that both my noble friend and the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD MILVERTON: I am glad to accept the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Extent of Part II
17. This Part of this Act extends to England and Wales only.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved to delete Clause 17. The noble Lord said: It is not possible to doubt the purpose of this Amendment. Scotland, so far as I can ascertain, wishes to have any benefits that she can receive from this Bill. When the Gowers Committee was inquiring into these matters ten years ago, it was assumed, and indeed stated, that there need not be any concern about Sunday opening of shops in Scotland, because the Sabbatarian attitude in Scotland was sufficient to safeguard the position. That was ten years ago, and a great deal has happened in those ten years. All those with whom I have discussed this Bill (and I have discussed it not only with representative people, but with people interested in the workers' side in shops. with the owners of shops and with people interested in seeing that Sunday is observed as a different day; that is to say, people connected with the churches) are agreed that they wish to have this exemption of Scotland from this Part of the Bill deleted from the Bill, in order that Scotland should get any benefits that can be achieved by regulations and decisions that are made. There are many people who are not of a Sabbatarian turn of mind who would fight strenuously to have Sunday observed as a separate and different day and a day to which other considerations than apply to week-days should apply, but only from the point of view of the increased pay that they can get for working on that day, and not from any feeling of reverence.
I believe it is right that there should be a certain code laid down, as it is laid down in this Bill, regarding the carrying on of activities of this kind on a Sunday. These provisions apply to England and Wales, and there is this regret that there is not the same regulation in respect of the opening of shops on Sunday in Scotland. Different considerations apply and different views obtain in different parts of Scotland regarding the way in which Sunday should be observed. This Bill would provide for that, because its administration would be in the hands of the local authorities, but it would not require to be quite so permissive as is set out in another clause in the Bill which I am seeking to amend later. The local authorities must take cognisance of the position and must seek to enforce the law that will be in operation if Scotland is included in Part II of the Bill. That would mean that the local authorities would have that obligation laid upon them, and it would be necessary for the inhabitants of the different local authority areas to sec that what was done was in accordance with their wishes. That would be done by the ordinary democratic means of questioning those who are in charge of their affairs and insisting upon the point of view that the inhabitants hold in the different areas being respected. I think I have said enough to make clear what I seek to do by moving the deletion of Clause 17. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 17.—(Lord Mathers.)
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OR STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): am grateful to the noble Lord for having moved this Amendment, thereby providing an opportunity of discussing this matter, which is one of considerable importance to people in Scotland, not only shopkeepers and their assistants but also to the public who, as the noble Lord has said, have their own views as to the observance of Sunday. I wonder whether your Lordships will bear with me a moment if I recall that this question of Sunday was debated on a number of occasions, between the two wars. In the 1930's, as the noble Lord will probably remember, there were a number of Private Bills put down in another place and debated there, the object of which was to restrict the opening of shops in
930
Scotland on Sundays. The noble Lord will also remember that in 1936, when the English Act which forms the basis of Part II of this Bill was passed, an Amendment to apply the restrictions to Scotland was rejected after a full discussion.
The noble Lord has referred to what the Gowers Committee said. It might be as well if I put on record the actual words they used. What they said was:
"We have little evidence of any demand for a Sunday Trading Restriction Act in Scotland and no ground for recommending that one should be passed."
I believe that, on the evidence produced to them, no one would doubt that that conclusion was justified. But, of course, the noble Lord has argued that there has been a considerable change in the situation during these past ten years. Indeed, I think I might infer from his remarks that he considers that there has been a considerable growth in Sunday trading, and that it now presents a serious problem, not only to the shopkeepers but to those other; of us who cherish the traditional Scottish view of the Sabbath. I would say to your Lordships that that view has been strongly pressed, both on myself and on my colleague, and as late as last Friday my honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Macpherson, received a deputation from thirteen Scottish retail trade organisations, the Co-operative Union and the Shop Assistants' Union, who advanced in great detail much the sane argument that has been followed by the noble Lord this afternoon.
I should like to examine the arguments put forward. I would say that one of our difficulties is that, so far, we have been unable to obtain any definite evidence to prove that Sunday trading has recently shown a marked increase, or that it has now reached any substantial proportions. Last year, Mr. Macpherson's predecessor in the office he now holds asked a deputation, similarly composed to that which came to the Scottish Office last week, if they could show figures which would demonstrate the extent of Sunday trading. No figures have, in fact, been supplied. I do not make any complaint about that, because one must recognise that it is difficult for those without any official sources of information to help in that way. But in the interval we ourselves have obtained some figures, and

931
I must say that they do not altogether bear out the statement which the noble Lord has made to-day.
We asked the shops inspectorates in Edinburgh and Glasgow to make a rough count of the number of shops which were open on Sunday. The Sunday we chose was November 18 last. They reported that in Glasgow there were 3,576 shops open, and in Edinburgh 1,102. We compared the figure with the figures that have been obtained officially on a Sunday in 1933. On that Sunday, 5,650 shops were open in Glasgow and 2,000 in Edinburgh. So between those two periods there has been a considerable diminution in the number of shops open on Sunday. It may well be that there has been an increase since 1946. I should be rather surprised if there had not been, for, after all, one would expect that there would be an increase after the war-time shortages had disappeared. But I do not know of any factual evidence that Sunday trading is growing, and I think perhaps it may already have settled down to a level below what it was pre-war or is now in the process of settling down at such a level.
I should like to indicate to your Lordships why I think that might be a reasonable conjecture. In the debates that were held twenty to thirty years ago, it was always recognised that we in Scotland have a long tradition of Sabbath observance. For a great many generations, of course, we have treated Sunday as a day set apart, to be used quite differently from the other six days in the week. One of the main reasons for the rejection in 1936 of the proposal to apply the English restrictions to Scotland was, as I think the noble Lord indicated, that any Scottish community could be relied upon, without the support of the law, to hold to a reasonable minimum the number of shops open on the Sabbath day. Of course, public conscience is involved. As the noble Lord will notice, and as he said, the climate of opinion in each town or village decides what activities should be countenanced on Sunday, and it was felt that this was sufficient. It has been suggested to-day by the noble Lord that those restraints have now broken down. I wonder what the Scottish Churches would say to that argument?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: They would support it.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I doubt that very much, and I shall allude to that in a moment or two. I doubt if the noble Viscount has any just cause to say that. At any rate, at the Scottish Office we have so far received no representations from the Churches; and, incidentally, they did not submit any evidence before the Gowers Committee. Nor, so far as I know, has any of them yet publicly indicated what its attitude is to the proposals we are debating at this moment.
I wonder whether I might look at the proposals a little more closely. The Amendment would apply Part II of the Bill to Scotland. Of course, that would not mean that Sunday trading would come to an end, because the Bill provides for a large number of exceptions. Any food shop, except a butcher's, may open up to 10 a.m. on Sunday if it registers with the local authority. Shops registered with the local authority for the sale of refreshments for off-consumption can open up to any hour, and if the noble Lord looks at the Second and Third Schedules he will find there a list of twenty-nine types of transaction which may be carried on on Sundays. The Fourth Schedule increases that number by another seven which may be allowed on Sundays at fishing ports and holiday resorts—a term, the noble Lord will realise, which in future is to be much more widely defined.
LORD MATHERS: The noble Lord says that that will be the result. It may be the result if the local authority agree. Is that not the position?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: No—if the shops are registered with the local authority.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: May I ask the noble Lord a question? Has there been any direct request from Scotland for closing on Sundays in Scotland?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The noble Marquess asks me whether there has been a direct request from Scotland. I have just been telling your Lordships that last Friday we had a deputation representative of thirteen different bodies, and also of the co-operative societies. I do not know

933
whether the noble Marquess would consider that a direct request from Scotland or not; it certainly is a request.
I do not criticise in any way noble Lords opposite for seeking to apply to Scotland this scheme of restrictions as it stands, because it seems that, if the wishes of the noble Lords are to be carried out, that is the only reasonable way to do it. This whole question of exemptions has always been difficult, and it would appear to me that the Gowers Committee's solution is about as sensible as one could find. It seems to me, further, that the Gowers Committee thought the only really defensible criterion to apply was what I may call the legitimate needs of the consumer. If a member of the public ordinarily and reasonably bought any particular article on a Sunday, the Committee thought that he should continue to be able to do so. Certainly by its scheme of exemptions the Bill gives effect to this conception in England and Wales. I would invite the noble Lord to ask himself if that is what we want in Scotland.
If we look for a moment at how it would work out in practice, we at the Scottish Office have tried to estimate the effect on Sunday trading, as it is carried on at present in Glasgow and Edinburgh, of applying Part II of the Bill. What it comes to is this: if we applied Part II of the Bill to Scotland, in Glasgow some 845 of the 3,000-odd shops—about a quarter of them—would be closed, and in Edinburgh out of 1,100 only some 70. Then one has to consider whether or not there is an offset to that; and in my opinion there is. We must recognise that some shopkeepers who would be exempted from the statutory requirements to close might well choose to open on Sundays, although they have not hitherto done so. So, in short, whilst the application of the code in the Bill might alter the types of shop which remain open, it might leave virtually unchanged the total amount of Sunday trading. That is the conclusion to which I come, and in these circumstances it does not seem to me that it is worth enacting a rather complicated code of Sunday restrictions.
There is another point that arises. Of course, if we are to enforce these restrictions, then it will be necessary to have an inspectorate—I think that that is what the noble Lord was alluding to in the
934
latter part of his speech. The inspectorate would have to be augmented from the present total, because up till now there has been no question of inspecting shops on Sundays. I do not think anyone likes to contemplate an unnecessary increase in the number of inspectors. I imagine that that would be quite abhorrent to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, after what he said on the subject last Thursday—I think his actual words were that he held them "in abhorrence". I suppose he would like there to be more of them appointed, but the Government's intention is this. It is to apply only those restrictions which can be shown to be necessary in order to preserve a fair balance between the shopper, the shopkeeper and his assistant.
I thought that in his speech the noble Lord rather overlooked one point, and that is Clause 39, because in that clause we are for the first time applying to Scotland Sunday employment provisions for the protection of shop assistants. The noble Lord may remember that under these provisions the assistant will be entitled to a day off in lieu of a Sunday when he works for more than four hours, or a half-day in lieu of a Sunday when he works for a shorter period of time than that; and he will be entitled also to at least one Sunday off duty in every four. This recognises the legitimate needs of those shop assistants who are required to work on the first day of the week.
I ask your Lordships: by the test of a fair balance, such as I have just mentioned, can it really be said that Sunday trading restrictions in Scotland are justified? I am bound to say that, if I may use a term quite familiar to us Scotsmen, the verdict would be "not proven". My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I are quite prepared to examine with open minds any further evidence that may be submitted to us, and to consider any further views that may be expressed, either by the Churches or from any other quarter. But I suggest to your Lordships that, for the present at least, the case for this Amendment has not been established. I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Lord for the detail with which he has

935
gone into the case submitted by my noble friend Lord Mathers on this matter, but I hope he will forgive me if I say that I do not agree with all the premises upon which he has come to his conclusion. I should like especially to say, first of all, that I am glad to know that the trade unions, the co-operative societies and the traders' associations were all represented in a deputation to his right honourable friend on this matter. I beg him to believe that, whilst those people come to him in a quite secular manner, in many cases, to deal with the growth, as they see it, of Sunday trading, it does not destroy in any way the real basic case which the Churches feel about the need for legislation in this matter.
I am not going to say that I could speak—surely not, as a Sassenach—on behalf of the organised Churches or Synods. Certainly, I should not dare to do so. But I do say that if one examines the paper which was prepared on Sunday observance and legislation for the report which was adopted by the British Council of Churches, which is an all-embracing body, this particular matter is dealt with in a way which concerns Scotland very much indeed. If the noble Lord has not seen this particular report, I hope he will get a copy. If he cannot, or if he has not had one submitted to his Department, he can have this one.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I have had a copy.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Then I am rather concerned, if the noble Lord has had it and read it, that he should take this view about the religious attitude to this matter in Scotland, because I think their view is clearly set out in the last paragraph of their report. Before I quote from it, may I say that it is clear, from the appendix to the report which was submitted to them, that the old law of Scotland concerning Sunday trading—I shall not quote it all, as it is far too long—has fallen largely into desuetude. The comment of the British Council of Churches upon that matter is this:
"It therefore appeared to the groups that there was need for some re-examination of the law in regard to Sunday. It is a clear Christian judgment that the Churches should not desire even useful provisions to rest upon laws that are archaic and in bad repair."
936
I feel that is the view of the Churches in general.
When I come to the actual facts, I must say that the noble Lord produced some quite startling statistics based entirely on a new and specialised count in the great cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. But the real complaints concerning the development of Sunday trading in Scotland which have been brought to my notice have not been so much with regard to Edinburgh and Glasgow (although they are included) as with regard to the growth of Sunday trading upon housing estates all over Scotland—not only in the big cities, but in different parts of Perthshire, Fifeshire, Stirlingshire and other counties which have been quoted. Naturally, the co-operative societies are concerned, because this has had such a considerable effect upon their business. In one case, which I think is quite shocking, one co-operative society now open their branch on the housing estate, because otherwise they would lose their trade during the rest of the week.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Perhaps the noble Viscount would give me the name of it later on; I do not want it now.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I will give the specific case. In matters of this kind the co-operative Union in Scotland have always sought not to become sectarian or to interfere in the general religious views of the people, or in their practices in accordance with those views. But when it comes to the co-operative societies' being forced competitively to open on Sunday, in order to retain their business upon large housing estates, then surely it is becoming a matter in regard to which they ought at least to have the same protection in regard to Sunday observance as is accorded in the Bill to England and Wales.
So far as I can see, the fact is that the old laws of the 17th century with regard to Sunday observance in Scotland have fallen into desuetude. Apparently there has been no case brought upon the old basis of Scottish law since Brown's case in 1931 and with the tendency of people at large to drop away from as much church observance as used to be the case (I think that is fairly general in most parts of the country) one can no longer rely upon the superior observance of the

937
Sabbath day in Scotland as being sufficient protection in regard to all the other things that arise out of Sunday observance in business and trade. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord who is answering in this House for Scotland will have further thought about this matter. I have also had representations from the Lord's Day Observance Society with regard to the Sunday position, and I myself—I say this because it may support my case to the noble Lord, who has already said that there has been a deputation—have received a deputation from both the trade unions and the Co-operative Movement, to see whether some change could be made, so that at least the protection against unfair competition in ordinary business, such as groceries, by Sunday trading in Scotland should be dealt with in the same manner as it is in England and Wales. I am quite sure that any outstanding elder of the kirk would not wish to see the standards in this matter lower in Scotland than in England and Wales.
LORD SALTOUN: This question has resolved itself into one of Sunday observance. All I want to say is that it is possible to turn the screw too hard. My experience in Scotland is that where, in a parish, the minister goes round and meets his congregation, and is well known and welcome to them, they fill his church on Sunday. On the other hand, where he takes the line, which is rather frequently in modern times, that it is not the duty of the minister to visit his congregation and become known to them, they leave his church empty. I know of one case where the ministers were very anxious to suppress Sunday golf. They succeeded in getting the club-house closed to people. The result is that when you go to church in that locality you find everybody playing golf on Sunday. They do not go to the club-house, but they play golf just the same. That reinforces my point that it is possible to turn the screw too hard.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I thank the noble Viscount opposite most sincerely for the contribution he has made to the debate. We have our differences, it seems, as to whether or not there is a growth of Sunday trading. The figures I have given to the Committee seem to show quite clearly that there has been a decrease in the amount of Sunday trading
938
that goes on, certainly as between 1933 and 1956. But I did say to your Lordships that it may well be that there has been an increase since 1946. That, to my mind, would be quite a natural thing to happen since restrictions were removed. The noble Viscount then turned to the case of the Churches. What I said to your Lordships is perfectly true—that we have had no representations from the Church. In a case such as this we should, naturally, expect to receive representations from, among others, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. So far, we have had no such representations.
Glasgow and Edinburgh are, of course, the two places most frequently mentioned in regard to Sunday trading—they are the places, not so much the country districts, from which the grievances, if I can call them such, come. But where there is a great deal of disquiet is throughout the rural areas of Scotland about the result of Sunday coach trips—not so much the opening of shops, as the desecration of the Sabbath, as the people in these quiet places say, that results front excursions by people from the more industrial areas on the Sabbath Day. I think we shall all agree that those who spend six days of the week in the towns and cities may perhaps be allowed a little relaxation on Sunday, if it is carried on without disturbing the quiet of other people.
I had no idea at all—I am grateful to the noble Viscount for telling me of it—of the opening of a co-operative shop on one of our housing estates. I am happy that he has undertaken to give me the name of the place where this has occurred.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I want to make it clear that they did so because they were forced to by reason of shops being already open there.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I understand that. The position is simply as I said in my closing remarks just now: that my right honourable friend and I are perfectly willing to examine any further evidence or views that may be expressed by either the Churches or any other body, but at the moment we do not feel that the case has been proved. What one has to be certain about, before imposing restrictions, is whether or not the position

939
is going to be better as a result of putting on the restrictions. My whole feeling at the moment is that it is very doubtful whether there would be fewer shops open as a result of imposing these restrictions than are open to-day.
LORD MATHERS: The concluding words of the noble Lord cause me to say that one of the considerations that have been advanced by those to whom I have talked on this matter is this: would the desire to open more shops on Sunday be created by providing for the opening of shops as shown in Part II of this Bill? The definite conclusion of those who have examined the position is that, at the least, they are willing to take the risk, believing that it will not lead to an increase in the opening of shops, and that to have a code established in this matter is of great advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, indicated that he felt that the case for the Amendment I am seeking to move had not been proven. I would retort that I do not think the case against the Amendment has been proven.
The noble Lord relied largely on statistics from Edinburgh and Glasgow, but the matter is one of much greater consequence in outlying places in the countryside. During the ten years on which we are looking back since it was decided to do nothing about Sunday opening of shops in Scotland, there has been a great increase in travelling, and in getting out and about in the country on Sundays. The noble Lord has shown his awareness of that by referring to the "wet" invasion of the countryside, with people tearing about in buses with loads of drink to be consumed on the journey—something that has become a real scandal and, as the noble Lord will know, there have been very strong protests from different places throughout Scotland, though not from the great cities, because people go out from the cities. That was a matter which I did not think it necessary to bring into consideration here, for that belongs more to the licensing laws than to a Shops Bill.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him as I wish to get this clear in my mind? Is the noble Lord not connecting his recent remarks on these coach tours with the necessity for the opening of shops in rural districts? It seemed to me that that, at
940
least, was a part of his argument, as I understood it. I may be quite wrong, but these coach parties, I understand, take food with them in hampers and also take their drink, to a large extent. Would the noble Lord he good enough to give me, later, names of places of which he can tell us where shops which used not to open in the past are now opening?
LORD MATHERS: I cannot give that information in detail but there is the fact that people are travelling from the cities to the countryside on Sundays, with opportunities available to them to spend money, and with time to spare. They are not drinking all the time—although that seems to be the main object of some of these bus tours. There are others, however, who, because of the influx of people into country places, naturally feel it desirable to reap benefit alone with the disadvantages by opening their shops and making goods available for purchase.
The complaint is made that no representations have been received from the Churches. I think I have demonstrated in this House that I am not a gambler, but I would be willing to say that the chances are very great that after the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in May of this year there will be something to report. I feel that some consideration should be given to the growing strength of opinion against Sunday opening. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough quoted from observations made by the Lord's Day Observance Society. I have here a communication from that body which under the heading "Scotland" says:
"With the exception of a provision prohibiting barbers' shops from opening on Sundays, Scotland is not affected by the sections of the Bill which relate to Sunday shops opening. Thus many will be disappointed that nothing is being done to deal with the alarming increase of Sunday trading in that part of the Kingdom."
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The noble Lord will appreciate that that is where we differ. They speak of an "alarming increase," but where are the facts to show that? They do not appear to exist.
LORD MATHERS: The noble Lord is putting his case on a very narrow basis when he speaks of the position in Edinburgh and Glasgow. In any case, with the permission given in this Bill for opening, does it not still depend on the

941
decision of the local authority to give permission for that opening? That is why I have said that in different parts of Scotland there are different views on this matter of Sunday opening and I am quite certain that in the Western Islands and Highlands of Scotland it will not make one, jot of difference, because the strict observance of the Sabbath is, and will continue to be, practised there, and I am glad of it.
The noble Lord also used an expression about meeting the legitimate needs of the people. The contention put to me is that many cases of Sunday opening are due to the action of shopkeepers in taking advantage of the opportunity presented by people with leisure. It is not that people cannot buy what they require during the week, but that when wandering about on a Sunday with nothing to do they take the opportunity of patronising a shop when they find it is open. It is quite true that many shops do far bigger trade on Sunday than they do on any week-day; but that is not to say that it is necessary for people to make their purchases on a Sunday. I sincerely hope that what we have heard from the Minister to-day is not to be the last word on this matter. I realise that this House is perhaps not properly representative of public feeling in a matter of this kind. I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division, as the noble Lord has given me an indication that the whole matter is still subject to examination and to proof. I think a great deal of proof can be brought beyond what I have given, and when this Bill gees to another place and the elected representatives of the people and of the different localities are there to deal with it, I feel that the case will be made much more strongly than I have ventured to make it to-day, with the limited information I have. I hope that it is not a question of any closed mind on the part of the Ministers in the Scottish Office, but that we shall see the possibility of an advance along the line which I have been pressing with regard to bringing Scotland within the terms of this Part of the Bill.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I just say this to the noble Lord? He spoke of the Ministers in the Scottish Office possibly having closed minds? May I remind him that I said definitely that we are prepared to examine with open minds any further evidence that may be sub-
942
mitted or any further views that may be expressed?
LORD MATHERS: I hoped that I should be able to bring the noble Lord to his feet again. With that assurance from him, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Sunday closing of shops
18.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act and to the provisions of any order relating to Sunday trading in London which is continued in force under this Part of this Act, every shop shall be closed on Sunday:
Provided that—

(a) a shop may, on Sunday, be open until seven o'clock in the evening, or such earlier time (not being earlier than six o'clock in the evening) as may be fixed by order of the local authority within whose area it is situate, for the sale of goods of any kind specified in the Third Schedule to this Act;

(b) a shop which is registered under section eleven of this Act may, on Sunday, be open at any time for the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in the shop, of articles of food or drink specified or described by regulations having effect by virtue of that section.

4.42 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved to insert at the commencement of paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1):
"subject to compliance by the occupier with such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment to Clause 18 is analogous to the one I moved in relation to Clause 10. I will not weary your Lordships with the reasons for it, which are the same as given in relation to the earlier Amendment. It did not find pleasure in the eyes of the noble Viscount; nevertheless I propose to put in the main plea once more. This clause enables shops to remain open on Sundays for he sale until 7 p.m. or a time not earlier than 6 p.m. of the goods specified in the Third Schedule of the Bill. It is, of course, the case that the shops which sell these goods ordinarily sell a much wider range of Roods. The regulations which are at present in force under the Shops Act, 1950, provide that the occupier of a mixed shop has to display an appropriate notice and to refrain from exhibiting goods of a class not permitted to be sold. I understand that the present

943
Bill has the effect of causing the existing regulations under the Shops Act to cease to operate. It is felt that as those regulations in these cases served a useful purpose, the Amendment here set out would permit the Secretary of State to make similar regulations in future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 31, after ("(a)") insert the said words.—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD BURDEN: May I add one word in support of this Amendment? A similar point was under consideration a little earlier to-day. This Amendment would allow the Secretary of State, if he felt it to be desirable—perhaps after some experience of the working of this freedom, which the noble Viscount talked about—to issue regulations to deal with the position. After all, it is really a protection to the shopkeeper, even in the case which received such marked consideration in this Bill—that of the vendor of fish and chips, A fish and chips merchant's shop frequently contains goods other than fish and chips, some of which might be used very conveniently with a shillings' worth of fish and chips—say, for example, a shilling bottle of vingear. But the keeper of the fish and chips shop is prevented from selling the vinegar. He can sell fish and chips to a person who likes a lot of vinegar with his or her fish and chips, and that person will no doubt feel very aggrieved if he or she is unable to buy the bottle of vinegar. In such a case the poor, unfortunate shopkeeper will have to endure the wrath of the consumer buying the fish and chips or else do something which at present is against the law. In the circumstances, I think it would be far better to have a little freedom for the shopkeeper rather than to have an absolutely rigid position as provided for in this Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The idea that regulations provide for additional freedom, though superficially an attractive one, hardly seems to me to correspond with the realities of the situation. The purpose of this Amendment, it appears to the Government, is, as Lord Milverton has said, exactly analogous to that which we discussed on Clause 10. Now it would be most illogical if, having resisted exactly the same Amendment in relation to early closing, we were to accept it in
944
relation to Sunday opening. I agree that the Amendments probably stand or fall together, for the reasons given before, and on this particular occasion, and with great humility. I suggest that they should fall together.
LORD MILVERTON: With an equal desire to that of the noble Viscount not to be illogical, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.47 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out all words after "open" down to the end of the paragraph, and to substitute:
"until one o'clock in the afternoon for the sale of food as defined in the following section."
The noble Lord said: May I discuss this Amendment with Amendment No. 42—though when we come to the later one I shall have something further to say upon it. These two Amendments deal with the matter which has caused the present law to fall into more ridicule than any other aspect of the Shops Act. Clauses 18 and 19 say, as the present Shops Act says, that one type of food may be sold on Sunday up to a particular hour and that another type of food may be sold up to a quite different hour. The Bill says here one kind of food may be sold up to 7 o'clock in the evening and another until 10 in the morning. It is really trying to create such cases as the famous action which came up in the courts, and which Sherlock Holmes would have called: "The case of the uncooked kipper "Your Lordships will remember that that was a case in which an inspector, who was just as hazy as anyone else about what the law might conceivably be, thought it his duty to bring a prosecution. The case, which rested on the fact that an uncooked kipper had been sold, reached the court. The inspector said that an uncooked kipper was not "edible food" within the meaning of the Act; that it was not a meal. The shop people, on the other hand, said it was a meal. The judge gave a most appropriate decision: he said that uncooked kipper was clearly inedible but that people ate it: therefore, it was a meal. That is the sort of thing which, in effect, this Bill is going to perpetuate. It is producing these absurd anomalies.
In these days, 10 a.m. is a quite unrealistic time at which to shut a shop on Sunday morning, because the habits of the people have changed. This Amendment deals with food sold for consumption outside the shop. It is unnecessary to sell the food as late as 7 p.m., remembering that holiday resorts are dealt with under a special clause. These two Amendments, therefore, provide that any type of food may be sold on a Sunday up to 1 p.m., and not some foodstuffs up to 10 a.m. and others up to 7 p.m. The present law is illogical and depends largely on what is considered to be perishable or not. There have been so many cases about this and so much ridicule, both inside and outside the courts, that. I urge: let us be sensible for once. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, leave out from "open" to end of line 41 and insert "until one o'clock in The afternoon for the sale of food as defined in the following section."—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was told that the effect of this Amendment would be to allow any shops in the country to open until 1 o'clock on any Sunday for the sale of practically any kind of food. If I understood my noble friend's speech aright, that indeed would be the effect of his Amendment. I do not know why 1 o'clock is more logical than any other time, nor why, once this kind of wide-ranging Amendment was allowed, we should stop short at food. My own belief is that, when we are dealing with Sunday closing or opening, we have to make an arbitrary line somewhere, unless we are to have absolute prohibition or absolute freedom. My reading of the present situation is that neither would meet with the approval of public opinion.
Sunday trading is not, I think, a matter upon which a Government should hold strong dogmatic opinions in either direction. There are strong religious views in one direction, and there are strongly held convictions that it is wrong for those who hold strong religious views to impose them on other people. I think that the present Amendment would meet with strong opposition from all Sabbatarians amongst us, and might cause the clause to founder in the discussions which we should have. Moreover, my information is that would be extremely unpopular with most of the food trades, particularly
946
the grocers. My own attitude towards Sunday trading rather conforms with this general philosophy. Sunday is an organised day of rest, and unless there is some kind of organised prohibition in support of it, in present conditions in England, at any rate—I do not wish to prejudice the discussion which has just taken place concerning the Northern kingdom—the organised day of rest will very likely disappear. I think that the present Amendment goes too far and that is the view of my right honourable friend. Therefore, I resist the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: With great respect, I do not think the noble Viscount has answered my questions. I will answer one of his. He says that my Amendment would allow shops to open on any Sunday, but as the Bill stands a local authority can issue an order prescribing that shops may open at any particular time or times. The law is always being broken at the present time, because some foods are sold until 7 p.m. and some only until 10 in the morning; and with the best will in the world there are always doubts about which category some foods come under. The noble Viscount, has not answered that point at all. I am not wedded to 1 o'clock or 12 o'clock; I am trying to get a general mean. If it is necessary to keep some shops open until 7 for the sale of some kinds of food, it would obviously be unfair to put in too early an hour: and if it is felt that some foods should not be sold after 10 o'clock, then it would be wrong to put in too late an hour. All I say is that it should be permissible to sell all foods during the same hours, so that there should be no doubt in the minds of the shopkeepers, the public and the inspectors, and, as we have seen from some of the judgments in the courts, in the minds of sonic judges, of what may or may not be sold. I should like the noble Viscount to reply to that point.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It may be that I do not wholly understand it. I am not in the habit of avoiding points deliberately. As I understand it, foods which can be sold until 10 a.m. are set out in Clause 19. They are sold in shops registered under that clause, and include food other than raw meat or raw poultry. The foods which may be sold until 7 o'clock are contained in the Third Schedule, if a local authority order is

947
made as provided by proviso (a) of Clause 18 (1) in relation to a shop registered under Clause 11. I should be the last to deny that in the regulations made under these clauses there might be individual cases of overlapping which would give rise to difficulty, but I do not see that we can prevent that.
My noble friend's proposal has the advantage, provided the order is made by a local authority, of allowing any shop to open until 1 o'clock on every Sunday for the sale of practically any kind of food, and there is no difficulty about that, except that it annoys the people who sell and the Sabbatarians. In an Amendment of this kind, I should have thought it was an even greater disadvantage not to have public opinion behind you than to be compelled to make a number of nice distinctions. I do not know how I can deal with my noble friend's questions except by drawing attention to the provisions of the Bill. Of course, it would be possible to invent or construct, or even record, cases which, under regulations, might give rise to difficulty; but having regard to the state of public opinion on the matter, I do not know if we could do any better than we have done.
LORD DERWENT: I do not understand why my noble friend should talk about Sabbatarians. We are now dealing largely with shops that stay open until 10 a.m. My suggestion is that they should stay open till 1 p.m. I do not see how the Sabbatarians come into it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not quite understand, and it may be that my noble friend and I are at cross-purposes here. As I understand it, he is moving the Amendment which stands in his name at page 12, line 38, and he proposes to insert the words,
"until one o'clock in the afternoon for the sale of food as defined in the following section."
—that is, Clause 19. I am told that the effect would be to allow any shop throughout the whole country to open until 1 p.m. on every Sunday, if the order so specified, for the sale of practically any kind of food. That would be a far-ranging exception. My information is that it would not be acceptable to those who are described as Sabbatarians. I may be wrongly advised about that, but
948
it is not for me to explain the point of view of my advisers, but to inform the Committee of what is their point of view, according to the information in my possession. My information is that they would oppose this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who always speaks so persuasively that I have to take care that he does not carry me with him. However, I have been able to escape on this occasion, and he does not carry me with him in regard to this Amendment. The point made by the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Hailsham, is quite true: that if the Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has moved is accepted, certainly some of the Sabbatarians would be strongly opposed. For example, if you take the views expressed not only to myself, but no doubt to many noble Lords, by the Lord's Day Observance Society, you can see at once that they think we are already going much too far in the direction of relaxation of previous conditions. I think it is fairly safe to say that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is right in saying that the Sabbatarians would be upset.
However, I go further and say that I have satisfied myself by consultation that you would very much upset the trade union attitude on this matter. It is bad enough, from their point of view, that thousands of employees whom they organise, and for whom they seek to get better conditions generally in the working week, are already, in their particular firms, the subject of competition from people who get business on the Lord's day. To extend that exemption to the sale of any class of food up to 1 p.m. on Sundays would create a further serious grievance to the trade unions. While I can understand the argument of the noble Lord about the anomalies that arise in such cases as that of the famous raw kippers, I think he had better leave it where it is, otherwise he will be aggravating the position both with regard to the Sabbatarians and certainly with regard to the trade union attitude.
LORD DERWENT: Could the noble Viscount tell me about the trade union attitude? These are shops which are already going to be opened, are they not?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: They open up to 10 a.m. at the moment. That certainly restricts the amount of food that is likely to be sold in competition with others who are working to get a five-day week. I have here a note from these people saying that, in the circumstances, they think the Amendment should be strongly opposed. So I do not speak entirely without a brief in this matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It only goes to show what a hornets' nest may arise from the most innocent observations. However, I must still maintain my attitude of keeping to the Bill, as drafted.
LORD DERWENT: I will not press this Amendment now, but I should like my noble and learned friend to try to deal with my point that, when a shop is opened, it should not be so difficult to know what you can or cannot sell, and perhaps come to some compromise over hours. I would ask him to look at the point again. That is really what I am getting at as regards Amendment No. 40. However, in view of what has been said by my noble and learned friend and by the noble Viscount opposite. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Exception for sale of food on Sundays at registered food shops
19.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing section, a shop which is registered under this section may be open on Sunday until ten o'clock in the morning for the sale of food (other than raw meat or raw poultry).
LORD DERWENT: This is the second Amendment about which I have just been speaking. I will say little about it, and I will ask your Lordships to give your opinion upon it, by voice, if possible, otherwise I shall press it. In spite of what the noble Viscount opposite has said, I still believe that, modern habits being what they are, 10 a.m. is an absurdly early hour at which to close a shop on Sunday. In many cases, people are not out of bed at that hour, and people forget that they have not bought things the night before. I suggest that 10 a.m. is much too early to close a shop, if it is considered necessary for it to be open at all. I suggest here until "one o'clock in the
950
afternoon", but that hour may be too late. However, I am sure that 10 a.m. is too early. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 8, leave out ("ten o'clock in the morning") and insert the said words.—(Lord Derwelt)
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: We have been invited by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to express an opinion, and I would venture to express the completely lay opinion that I p.m. is too late, although 10 a.m. is too early, so far as towns are concerned. To close a shop by 10 a.m. means an unduly early start, and an employee has to get there at an early hour in the morning to open the shop in order to be able to close it by 10 a.m. Further, it does not really suit the convenience of the public, for whom we are supposed to think occasionally, if we say that they should get out of bed and finish reading the News of the World, or whatever it is, on a Sunday morning and rush round to the shop to get the necessary articles of food which they may have forgotten to get, or could not get, the day before. I should have thought that 11 a.m. would be a suitable hour.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Again, I do not want to adopt any kind of dogmatic attitude about this matter. The whole object of Sunday closing is to have a day of rest, anti that must apply largely to the employees in the shop. When you have an organised day of rest, I take it that, whereas in the rest of the week the overriding consideration must be the convenience of the public, you have presumably allowed your consideration to be the freedom from work of those whose rest is protected. I have not any strong views as between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., and therefore what I will do is to report to my right honourable friend what my noble friend below the gangway has said. As regards 1 p.m., I am hound to say to my noble friend Lord Derwent that the view of try right honourable friend—and, indeed, my own view—is that, given the premises upon which the philosophy of Sunday trading exists, 1 p.m. is a great deal too late. The object of this particular narrow exception in Clause 19 is that it is simply intended, like Section 48 of the 1950 Act, to allow the continuance of the old practice in some parts of the country of a few food shops staying open

951
for an hour or two early on Sunday morning. It is not intended to open the field to large-scale Sunday trading; indeed, this provision is limited largely to cases where the local authority make an order under Clause 19 (7). My own feeling is that I prefer the clause as it is. However, I will certainly see that what Lord McCorquodale of Newton has said reaches my right honourable friend. He will consider the possibility of altering the particular hour, but not, I think, as my noble friend Lord Derwent would desire.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, as I imagine he will, I should like to give him some aid and comfort on this matter, so that when the noble Viscount goes to the Minister he might say that there was support from both sides of the House. I myself am not enamoured of opening on Sundays at all, and I could well understand it if the Bill provided that there should be no Sunday opening. But to open on Sundays until 10 o'clock in the morning does strike me as being somewhat farcical. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that many people, tired out as the result of their labours on the six days of the week, do not even get up until 10 o'clock on a Sunday. It is giving them no benefit at all that a shop should have been open but is closed at 10 a.m. I should have thought that, if this concession was to be given at all—and, of course, nobody is obliged to open—12 o'clock would be a much more reasonable time to close. I hope the noble Viscount will bear that in mind when he makes representations to the Minister.
LORD DERWENT: I did say that I was not wedded to 1 o'clock, and I put down that time in order to tie up with my previous Amendment. Because wanted to get them all open and shut at the same hour. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton that 1 o'clock is too late. I would be grateful if, before the Report stage, the noble Viscount would let me know whether the Government are going to put down an Amendment for some hour later than 10 and earlier than 1, because if they are not, I will put one down on the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Power of local authority, in sea-fishing centres and holiday resorts, to extend certain Sunday opening hours and to permit Sunday opening for transactions specified in Fourth Schedule
20.—(1) A local authority whose area—

(a) includes a harbour used for the purposes of the sea-fishing industry, being a harbour whose use for those purposes is substantially greater during some seasons of the year than during others; or

(b) consists of, or includes, a place frequented (whether at all times or during certain seasons of the year) by tourists or holiday-makers;

may by order direct that, as respects shops situate within their area or such part thereof as may he specified in the order, being shops registered by the authority under the last foregoing section, subsection (1) of that section shall, as respects such Sundays as may be so specified, have effect with the substitution, for the reference to ten o'clock in the morning, of a reference to such hour later than ten o'clock in the morning but not later than eight o'clock in the evening as may he so specified.
5.13 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1) to omit "but not later than eight o'clock in the evening." The noble Lord said: This is a matter the basis of which we discussed under Amendment No. 13. It concerns the powers of local authorities in holiday resorts. I will be very short indeed if my noble friend can indicate whether he is going to give the same undertaking as he gave on Amendment No. 13, which was that he and his right honourable friend are sympathetic to the Amendment, and that if the Amendment is moved at some later stage of the Bill, when they have also the opinion of another place, they will be even more sympathetic, if he feels about this Amendment as he did about Amendment No. 13, I need not say anything more. It is simply a question of a closing hour, which in holiday resorts we say should be a matter for the local authority to decide. Eastbourne and Blackpool do not want to close at the same time, any more than do their shopkeepers or their shop assistants. That was the basis of the previous argument, and is the basis of this argument. I will say no more if my noble friend will give me some indication whether he is going to adopt the same attitude to this Amendment as to the earlier one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 25, leave out from ("morning") to ("as") in line 35.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD BURDEN: The Amendments on the Order Paper in the names of my noble friends Lord Milverton and Lord Lucas of Chilworth have something of the same intention as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I would plead for the local authority to be given freedom to consider the circumstances in the light of the problems which they have in their seaside resorts. It is all very well to say that shops must close at 7 or 8 o'clock, or thereabouts. Take Blackpool, for example. The public-houses will be open, the fun fairs will be going full blast, and yet one cannot buy even an ice-cream after 7 or 8 o'clock, as the case may be. As the Fourth Schedule is related to this particular clause, may I again ask why, in paragraph 7 of that Schedule, fish and chips receive such special mention? Why is a person in Blackpool allowed to buy fish and chips but precluded from buying a dozen oysters—it would be illegal—not to mention whelks, or things of that kind? To reduce the matter to an absurdity, he can buy fish and chips but he cannot buy an orange or an apple. May I ask the noble and learned, Viscount, looking at this question of greater freedom for the local authority to deal with their own circumstances, to look again at the Fourth Schedule and to say why, if he is in favour of freedom, it will be legal for the free men and women of England to eat only those things that are set forth in the Schedule, the other things that are not specified being denied to them?
LORD MILVERTON: There is little that I can add. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, gave a favourable reception to the Amendment in Clause 4, and as the arguments in this one are almost precisely similar I do not wish to push at an open door. I hope that he will give the same favourable consideration to this Amendment. There is a vital principle involved, because once the principle of the need for special arrangements in holiday resorts has been accepted, local authorities should surely be left to judge the extent of those needs and to make orders accordingly. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer with arguments which have already been accepted.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My attachment to this Amendment is precisely the same as to the Amendment in
954
Clause 4, which the noble Viscount accepted in principle. I could say only precisely the same as the noble Lord who has just spoken, so I will refrain from doing so and hope that the noble Viscount will give the Amendment his favourable consideration.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not sure that I can answer all these questions, but in principle I hope to satisfy all noble Lords who have spoken by saying that our attitude towards this Amendment is precisely the same as that which we evinced toads the analogous Amendment. We recognise that, in addition to the trade unions—who, I think, were alone concerted with the earlier and analogous Amendment—we have to take into account in relation to this matter the opinions and objections of the Sunday observance movement. However, we are prepared to consider it. I am not sure that I quite understand the exact philosophy of the special treatment accorded to fish and chips. I imagine that it is a kind of pragmatic sanction. It seems more likely that there will be more demand for fish and chips than for oysters and champagne. I do not suppose there is anything deeper in it than that.
Of course the noble Lord will not have forgotten that food shops registered under Clause 11 and the Third Schedule may be allowed by the local authority to open at any time, and a similar power is given under Clause 18. It may be that, if I am right in try rather hasty judgment of the matter, the reason why a local option for fish and chips is given at seaside resorts is because it is thought that the more general provision, which applies not only to seaside resorts but to other places at the same time, if there is a local authority option under proviso (b) of Clause 18 (1), might be an adequate protection for them, whereas without this clause various commodities are covered by the First Schedule, unless I am mistaken, and therefore can be sold only up to, I think it is, 2 p.m. But it is a point on which I should like to consider further, in case I have made an error in my construction of this Statute. With that, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied.
LORD DERWENT: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his sympathy. Before I ask leave to withdraw the

955
Amendment, may I fortify his sympathy by asking him if he will remember that I have been advised by those who have had considerable experience In trying to enforce the present Shops Act that, if certain holiday resorts had to close at eight o'clock, as is now down in the clause, the clause would in fact be unenforceable because the large majority who wished to stay open would do so? It sounds a terrible thing to say but I said earlier in this Committee stage that the inspectors have found that, where either the public or the shopkeepers are as a whole—not individually but as a whole—against any particular regulation, that regulation in fact becomes unenforceable. Therefore, may I just repeat that to the noble Viscount to reinforce his sympathy. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Special provisions with respect to carrying on of trade, otherwise than in shops, by persons of the Jewish religion, others who observe the Jewish Sabbath and persons of the Muslim faith
(6) A local authority may refuse to register a person's name under this section if the registration thereunder of the name of that person (whether by that or any other local authority) has previously been revoked or cancelled, and shall, in any case where they do so refuse, forthwith give to the applicant for registration written notice of their decision in the matter and if the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the authority he may, within three weeks from the giving of notice of the authority's decision, appeal to a magistrates' court.
5.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (6), after "cancelled" to insert:
"or if the registration under the two immediately preceding sections of this Act of a shop (whether situate within or outside the area of the authority) has previously been revoked or cancelled at a time when its occupier was the applicant or a partnership or company any of whose partners or directors was the applicant or (where the applicant is a partnership or company) a partner or director thereof,"
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to put right what I think is an anomaly in the Bill as it is now drafted. I hope I shall have the sympathy of the noble Viscount opposite in the attempt I have in mind, even if he
956
says that I am not setting about what I want to do in the right way, which may be the case.
Clauses 26, 27 and 28 deal with the registration of persons of the Jewish or Muslim faith who wish to have a retail business either in shops or on other premises. In Clauses 26 and 27, local authorities are authorised to refuse an application for registration if a previous registration had been cancelled presumably owing to some irregularity on the part of the applicant. But the anomaly arises that, as the Bill stands, this power given to the enforcing authority applies only in the case of shops, if the applicant is running a shop, then the local authority can refuse his application for registration if his previous registration has been cancelled; but if the applicant is asking for permission to sell the same goods from a stall, instead of in a shop, then the local authority have no power to refuse the application. The object of this Amendment is to put stalls in the same category as shops. As I say, I am not certain about the wording of the Amendment. I studied it carefully, but I confess that I am not happy about it. The noble and learned Viscount and I have the same object in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 37, after ("cancelled") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I feel that I am getting into very deep drafting water with this Amendment. I will endeavour to explain why I am rather inclined to resist it. I am in such deep water about it that I am quite open to conviction that I am wrong. I might preface my remarks by reminding the noble Earl that under Part III of the Bill a local authority can refuse to register Jewish or Muslim shopkeepers if the registration of a shop with which they have been concerned has previously been revoked or cancelled: and they can refuse to register a Jew or a Muslim who trades from a van or barrow if his registration has previously been revoked or cancelled. The noble Earl's Amendment would enable the local authority to refuse to register a van trader or barrow boy if he be concerned with a shop, the registration of which has been revoked or can. Celled It has, therefore, the laudable

957
intention of stopping what is called the gap in the Bill.
The trouble is that, if you start making permutations, there is almost no limit to where you can go. For example, this Amendment would still leave it open for a Jewish barrow boy whose registration had been revoked or cancelled to apply to have a shop registered. Furthermore, it is possible that that is more likely than that the shopkeeper would turn barrow boy. Moreover, a person who falsely pretended to be a Jew at one time might later pretend to be a Muslim. The result is that, if you start stopping up all these holes by separate Amendments, it is a little difficult to know how far you are going in detailed draftsmanship.
Those who have been responsible for drafting the Bill are inclined to think that the provisions of subsection (4) of Clause 28 are really designed to sweep up various permutations and combinations which are not provided for by express provision. That is to say, in each case, in the case of the Jew and in the case of the Muslim, a suitable religious tribunal can be invoked if there is good reason to suppose that the application is made falsely and improperly. My own feeling is that probably the draftsmen are right about this. We could obviously start putting in Amendments of the kind that the noble Earl has very reasonably suggested but, if we did, we should certainly have to put in others. As at present advised, my inclination is to think that the tribunal solution ultimately becomes the best because it is beyond the wit of man to anticipate in every instance the degree of obloquy which may inspire people who fraudulently pretend to be Jewish or Muslim barrow boys.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I appreciate the complexities of the situation. I must admit that I had not myself studied subsection (4) of this clause as a possible alternative to my Amendment. I should like the opportunity of doing so, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing my attention to it, although I am sure that he will appreciate that if I am not satisfied I shall probably return to the charge at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Special provisions with respect to Kosher butchers and poulterers
29.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Part II of this Act, a person of the Jewish religion who, within the area of a local authority, carries on the business of a retail dealer in Kosher meat may, on Sunday, carry on that business and (if he occupies for the purposes of that business a shop situate in that area) keep it open for those purposes, on condition that he complies with the following provisions, that is to say:—
(d) if he occupies for the purposes of that business a shop situate within their area, he shall keep displayed in the shop in the prescribed manner a notice in the prescribed form that it is open on Sunday for the purposes of retail dealing in Kosher meat, but is not open on Saturday.
5.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1) to omit paragraph (d). The noble Earl said: This may appear a rather surprising Amendment, because it is not often that enforcing authorities wish to relieve shopkeepers of an obligation which is, as a general rule, of considerable assistance to them. But in this case the view is taken that it is an unnecessary imposition on Kosher retailers to have to put up in their shop notices that they are open on Sundays and closed on Saturdays It is presumed that they will, in fact, be open on Sundays and closed on Saturdays, and that both the public and the local authorities know that that is the case. It is therefore unnecessary to put them to the trouble to display a notice to inform people in the area that they are open on the Sunday and closed on the Saturday. I am sure the noble Viscount will welcome any reasonable opportunity of removing restrictions; in this case, at any rate, we are entirely in sympathy with his ideological views. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, tire I, leave out paragraph (d).—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I feel that this is an Amendment which can safely be accepted without more ado. It has the supreme merit of leaving out something instead of putting something in, and if only for that reason it commends itself to the draftsman's eye.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I appreciate particularly the hint

959
that was given about the possibility of leaving out portions of this Bill; I shall not forget that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Weekly half-holidays
37.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the following subsection and to the following provisions of this Part of this Act relating to special exceptions, the occupier of a shop shall allow in each week to every shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop a half-holiday on a business day which shall be notified in the prescribed form and manner.
(2) The occupier of a shop may, in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop dispense with compliance with the foregoing subsection as respects not more than two of the three weeks of Christmastide, but—
(a)where the occupier of a shop in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop dispenses with compliance with that subsection as respects two of the three weeks of Christmastide the occupier shall allow that assistant a whole holiday on each of two of the Christmas and new year holidays and shall also allow him—

(i) during one of the four weeks next following the first week as respects which compliance with that subsection was dispensed with in his case a half-holiday on a business day; and

(ii) during one of the four weeks next following the second week as respects which compliance with that subsection was so dispensed with a further half-holiday on a business day;

and a half-holiday which a shop assistant is, by virtue of this subsection, entitled to be allowed in any period shall be in addition to the half-holidays which he is, by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, entitled to be allowed in that period.
LORD COLERAINE LORD COLERAINE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "subsection" and insert "subsections." The noble Lord said: Although this Amendment is suggested at this point it is in fact consequential upon Amendment No. 66, in as much as if Amendment No. 66 were not accepted there would be no point in this Amendment. With the permission of the Committee, therefore, in moving Amendment No. 60 I will direct my argument to the later Amendment. I am glad to be able to say that my argument will be neither laboured nor prolonged.
960
On Clause 7 I moved an Amendment to the effect that where a shop was closed on Good Friday it should not be necessary to have an early closing day during that week. My noble friend was good enough to accept that Amendment, and I was grateful to him. In moving it, however, I indicated that when we came to Clause 37, I proposed to move another Amendment to ensure that though the early closing day was lost in the week of Good Friday, the position of the shop assistants would not be prejudiced. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 66. As I say, Amendment No. 60, which I am now moving, is in a sense consequential upon that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 43, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").—(Lord Coleraine.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My brief had stated that the dislike of local authorities for postponed half-holidays would probably be voiced in the debate on these Amendments. Well, it has not been. In the circumstances, and faced with unexpected silence on the part of the local authorities, I think my best course is to agree to consider this Amendment. There is, I think, a good deal to be said for it, especially as it is to some extent on the same lines as an Amendment which I accepted last time. The effect of the Amendment is partly that the assistant's half-holiday can be postponed from Holy Week to one of the three succeeding weeks. This would correspond roughly with subsection (2) of the same clause, and therefore, in principle, the Amendment would seem to be acceptable. But it goes further than this, by allowing a compensatory half-holiday to be given in the three preceding weeks. It is on this particular aspect of the matter that—I was going to say "those instructing me", but that would not be the correct phrase in your Lordships' House—those on whose advice I have to rely in such matters have the greatest degree of doubt. Therefore, with my noble friend's permission and with that degree of explanation, I will say that this Amendment will be considered.
LORD COLERAINE: I am grateful to my noble friend for the consideration he has promised to give the Amendment. I greatly hope that he will be able to remove the doubts of his advisers on the particular point that he mentioned, but in

961
the light of what he says I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in the prescribed form and manner" and insert:
"by a notice in the prescribed form specifying the day of and time of commencement of the half holiday of each assistant and it shall be the duty of the occupier of the shop to keep such notice displayed in the prescribed manner from the Saturday immediately preceding the week in which such half holiday is to be given until the e id of such week."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is exactly the reverse of the Amendment I moved just now. It is to ensure that shop assistants get their half-holiday, by requiring shopkeepers to put notices in their shops to show the dates and the times when the assistants are entitled to their half-holiday, and to keep those notices there for a period of a week. It is designed to try to write into the Bill the particular form and manner in which notification shall be given of the shop assistants' half-holiday, I hope that the Amendment may be acceptable, because I am assured that it will make the duty of enforcement so much easier and that it would be extremely difficult if it had to be done in the manner suggested in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 2, leave out from ("notified") to end of line and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The intention of those framing the Bill is to leave this sort of detail to regulations. On the whole, I would put forward the view that it would simplify the Bill if this were done. The shopkeeper already has to put up a notice under Clause 37 (1), and if he does not do so he will, under Clause 48 (1), be committing an offence. The actual form is to be prescribed by the regulations, and on the whole we think that is the best way of dealing with it rather than putting positive words into the Bill.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not at all sure that the noble Viscount may not be right about the method of dealing with this by regulation, rather than by specific provision within the Bill. I hope that when the noble and learned Viscount comes to redraft the regulation he will think of doing it in the way suggested in
962
this Amendment, because that is evidently what will be most helpful to the enforcing authorities. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.42 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply where agreement has been reached between persons or bodies substantially representative of employers and workpeople in any trade that shop assistants in that trade may be employed to work on any six days of the week."
The noble Lord said: This is a matter of some importance, because it is here that this Rill appears to me to cut across vital principles of industrial negotiation as between responsible bodies of employers and responsible representatives of labour. Although paragraph 11 of the Second Schedule exempts from this Bill
"The sale of parts of, or accessories to, or fuel or lubricants for, vessels, aircraft mechanically propelled vehicles, cycles, or agricultural machinery or equipment."
this clause in the Bill covers conditions of employment of shop assistant; and petrol filling stations, or the forecourt of promises from which petrol is sold, are technically retail shops, and men employed as petrol pump assistants are, again technically, according to this Bill, shop assistants. But they are not shop assistants; they come under their own wage provisions and conditions of employment, under the National Joint Industrial Council for the motor vehicle retailing and repairing trade.
If the Committee will forgive a personal reference, may I say that it was in 1941, when I happened to be President of the employers' organisation, that I, under the careful tuition of that great man, Ernest Bevin, when he was Minister of Labour, formed the National Joint Industrial Council and. brought wages and conditions of employment regulations into this trade for the first time in its history. I have in my hand the agreement that was negotiated. It covers both sides of a sheet of foolscape paper. The union side is impressive and remains the same to-day: the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the Transport and General 'Workers' Union, the Electrical Trades Union and the National Union of Vehicle Builders. I suppose

963
that that is the most impressive list there could be of trade unions in this country.
We early came to the conclusion that if this trade was to give a service to the public we should have to cover seven-day working—all petrol pump attendants come under this agreement. so we are not now dealing in any way with shop assistants—and under Clause 6 of this agreement, we have seven-day working provisions. Naturally, the employees work only six days and have one rest day, with compensating monetary payments for the hours they work and for the absence of a half day. To be frank with the Committee, I may say that if these men are not exempted from the provisions of the Bill, I believe it will mean the closing down of about half the petrol stations in this country, because this does not affect only the very large filling station on a main road which may have twenty employees; it covers the very small village petrol station, with perhaps two pumps, which is necessary to provide for the road transport of this country—for your Lordships, for example, who, when on pleasure bent (when you can get petrol to be on pleasure bent) motor in country areas during week-ends.
This agreement has worked to the satisfaction of everybody since 1941. My wording may not be acceptable to the noble and learned Viscount, but I sincerely trust that the principle is. In vital service trades, where conditions of labour and wages paid are freely negotiated between responsible associations of employers and responsible unions of employees, a Bill like this should not cut across such agreements. I am not wedded to the wording of my Amendment the noble and learned Viscount may have objections to it, but it is the best that I could do, it may not be in the right place in the Bill, but it is a job to find the right place for anything in this Bill. As the noble and learned Viscount has just said, the easiest thing to do is to leave something out and then one does not have to find a place for it. I hope I have made my case for this Amendment and that the noble and learned Viscount will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 2, at end insert-—
("Provided that this subsection shall not apply where agreement has been reached between persons or bodies substantially repre-
964
sentative of employers and workpeople in any trade that shop assistants in that trade may be employed to work on any six days of the week.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to appear brutal about this Amendment, but I am sorry to say that I doubt whether there is any place for it in this Bill. It is a matter upon which it would greatly surprise me to know that the noble Lord who has moved it is in agreement with current thought in his Party or in the trade unions. The effect of this Amendment would be to remove from businesses to which the Amendment is designed to apply—it does not specify petrol filling stations although that was the example given—all provisions for the protection of shop assistants in relation to weekly half-holidays, on condition that a trade agreement with a particular trade union is in force. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that the attitude of trade unions in such matters, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, is quite the contrary.
This raises a question which might have been raised on some of these Benches: whether in the presence of a strong trade union movement it is really necessary to provide any statutory restrictions at all for shop assistants. Much that point of view was raised by two of my noble friends in the more general debate which we had on Clause 1. I am bound to say that at the moment that is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. Their view is that statutory restrictions are necessary in some cases, including the present, and that the mere presence of a trade union agreement covering a trade or part of it is not a sufficient protection. If Her Majesty's Government were told officially by the trade unions that they differed from us on this matter, it would, of course, lead us to reconsider our view, but we have not been so told. On the contrary, we understand that the trade unions are anxious to preserve the basic safeguards which assistants have so long enjoyed under existing legislation and which we have hitherto regarded as reasonable.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Might I interrupt the noble Viscount to ask him this question? How does he line up what he has just said with the fact that under my hand is the current agreement that has been agreed to by the

965
unions the names of which I have read out? If that is not an expression of current thought, I do not know what is.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must say that my experience of the unions is that they do not, as a rule, allow their agreements to be used as an argument against statutory protection for those whom they desire to represent. I can imagine a very strong Conservative saying that they ought to, but hardly such an ornament of the Labour Party as the noble Lord opposite. I must say, with respect, that I do not see how an Amendment of this kind could ever be enforced. How is a shops inspector to know in relation to any particular trade or branch of a trade whether a trade agreement is in force or not, and whether that trade agreement is in force in relation to "substantially representative" persons or bodies? I do not think they are registered centrally at all. I do not even know what the words mean.
While this Amendment has a certain superficial attraction on the basis of justice—I realise that employers who enter into agreements with trade unions are acting in an enlightened and responsible way—the more I look at it the more I am convinced that it is really no good and that we do right to resist it. As I say, if trade unions officially approach the Government and say that they do not want this statutory restriction any more and that they are satisfied with their own negotiating strength, then, obviously, a person like myself who has nothing but a professional background behind him would reconsider his position. At present, I think statutory restrictions have very great value over and above any trade union agreement there may be.
LORD BURDEN: I accept the reasoning of the noble Viscount. Broadly speaking, there is always an objection to contracting out from any statutory provision of this kind. Contracting out has been fought from Labour Benches in relation to a great many matters such as Workmen's Compensation. The point really is that these statutory provisions cover a union, or unions, of shop assistants, as we broadly understand the term. They naturally look after their own people and they are fairly well organised now, but one knows that there are large numbers of shop assistants, particularly in large stores, who, for one reason
966
or another, are not organised into any trade union. Therefore the unions concerned are very keen on these statutory provisions. But we must not try to clamp all trades into one general provision. If road transport undertakings, of necessity, require fuel for their work, and there is an agreement between these bodies, I think it would be perfectly right and fair for these bodies to make representations to Her Majesty's Government. It ought then to be possible to find a way to meet their particular cases as against a general provision which undoubtedly is necessary for shop assistants, particularly those not at the moment protected by an organised trade union.
LORD SILKIN: I have no particular ideological view on this question at all, but it seems to me that my noble friend has made a case which ought to be met. It may be that his Amendment is too wide, because it would apply to all undertakings where there was an agreement between employers and the unions, and that would displace the statutory protection. It would, in fact, amount to contracting out. As the debate has gone on, it seems to me that there is some doubt whether the undertaking which my noble friend is talking about is a shop at all. It is certainly not a shop in the generally accepted and generally understood sense. It seems to me that there ought to be some special provision in this connection.
While I fully appreciate what the noble Viscount has said—and I particularly appreciate the tenderness which he feels about the susceptibilities of trade unions and his desire to preserve their status—I think there is a case here that needs consideration. Whether it should be met by way of special protection for garages serving petrol, whether it should be met in the form in which my noble friend has put down his Amendment, limiting it in that way, I should not like to say. But I do feel that the noble Viscount has dismissed this rather cavalierly. To leave it to the trade unions to make an approach is a little difficult. I feel it would be as well if he looked further into this matter from the point of view of the protection of the general public. If my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth is right, half the garages in the country would have to close down for the sale of petrol at certain times of the week. That would be a very serious effect of this Bill.

967
If that can be avoided without damage to the principles of the Bill, it certainly should be avoided.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry that I should have been accused of being, or even be thought to be, cavalier in any way. My own impression was that I was going almost out of my way to be conciliatory, because it would have been easy for me to say about this matter what I think can be stated in two blunt, though not very cavalier, sentences. First, I can see absolutely no reason at all why an assistant at a garage undertaking does not need a half-holiday every week just as much as an ordinary shop assistant. Secondly, I do not believe that, if he got one, half the garages in the country would close down. I cannot say fairer than that. That is where I stand on the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps, in my desire to be brief, I did not state the case as fully as I should have done. Both Lord Silkin and Lord Burden were quite right. The fault is this. A petrol filling station, or any petrol sale from a garage, turns the establishment into a retail shop. It should not do so, because wages and conditions of all employees in a garage are covered by the National Joint Industrial Council Agreement. The law says that a showroom is a retail shop; a petrol forecourt is a retail shop. When we were debating my previous Amendment about the open space in a garage which has two cars on exhibition upon it, the question was asked: how is it to be said that that few square feet shall be called a retail shop for the purpose of early closing? The position is precisely the same. If a mechanic serves petrol, he is not covered by this agreement at all. Where do you draw the line? If it is a filling station on a main road, and does nothing else but sell petrol, the position is not difficult, But 70 or 80 per cent. of the garages in the country are not built that way. The mechanic working on the engine of your motor car one minute is paid a mechanic's rate of pay, and whether he gets half-holidays or not is neither here nor there, because he gets time-and-a-half for working and no half-holidays are stipulated in a mechanic's agreement. At what time does he become a petrol attendant? The fault lies in saying that the petrol selling
968
activities of a garage make the petrol-pump part of the premises a retail shop, and that the man who pushes the switch is a shop assistant.
I prefaced my remarks by saying that I am not tied to the wording, and I put down this Amendment to have the point clarified. I would say that the exemption provided in the Second Schedule alters the character of petrol selling as a retail activity. The selling of petrol and lubricants for all road vehicles is there exempted. One can sell petrol twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and be immune. When we try to fix conditions of employment and hours of work, then we come up against the difficulty that this Bill cuts across existing agreements. There exists for all repair trade workers a properly drawn up agreement with the appropriate unions. This point came out well in the Gowers Report, and I expect the noble Viscount will remember what was said. We should not attempt to control the hours and conditions of wages of these people by the Shops Bill. The time is past when we can do that. They should all be fixed under the Wages Council Act.
The noble Viscount has said that he has only a professional background for his knowledge of this matter. I assure him that I have a practical background. Five years of wage negotiations did not leave me as ignorant as when I started. I know of no five unions who drive a harder or better bargain on behalf of their members, and of the trade whose labour side they control, than the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Electrical Trades Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Union of General and Municipal Workers, and the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers. They negotiated the agreement, which I have here, which has worked satisfactorily since 1941. If the noble Viscount will peruse this agreement, he will see that both the emoluments and the hours worked are satisfactory. Those who work under this agreement would not give it up for anything. Like my noble friend Lord Silkin, I think that this point should be looked into. I am not going to accuse the noble Viscount of dismissing it lightly; I accept the responsibility of not filling in the blanks as I should have done, but I thought that he was as well acquainted with this as I am. I should like the noble

969
Viscount to consult the trade unions, because I think they have not been properly consulted.
The Bill cuts across certain trades, and I think it is right that we should take motor vehicle repair shops out of the Bill and rely on this agreement. I assure the noble Viscount that it covers every petrol filling station and repair shop in the country. My noble friend and Leader showed on a previous Amendment that a large number of shop assistants have no union protection, but every employee in the motor vehicle repair trade, including all Government repair shops is covered by this agreement; it applies 100 per cent. I should have thought that any agreement negotiated for that trade by these five unions—I have never known the A.E.U. to be backward in talking about the interests of their members—would be regarded by the Government as impressive.
Then the noble Viscount tells me that I am out of touch with current trade union thought. Is he levelling the same accusation against the A.E.U., the T. and G.W.U., the M. and G.W.U., the E.T.U. and the Woodworkers? Are they out of touch with trade union thought? Their national joint industrial council meets every three months or so, and surely if they were dissatisfied with this agreement would not have lasted from 1941 until to-day. Their wages have altered, but the principle in the agreement has not. I beg the noble Viscount not to dismiss this point lightly and to consider it in relation to paragraph 11 of the Second Schedule, which lists:
"The sale of parts of, or accessories to, or fuel or lubricants for vessels, aircraft, mechanically propelled vehicles, cycles, or agricultural machinery or equipment."
I can put him in touch with the national joint industrial council of the motor retail and repair trade to see whether they would not like petrol filling stations and repair shops taken out. Because this clause will be enforceable only on a filling station that is one entity; if it has a repair station attached to it that is only the size of this Table the Bill will be useless, because the station will employ only one mechanic and he cannot be touched under this clause as he is not a shop assistant. I beg the noble Viscount to discuss this question with his advisers and I will give him every help I can in the
970
matter. The Shops Act has never operated in the motor retail trade before, neither in the sale of petrol nor in the sale of vehicles, but this agreement has always operated, for the reason I gave your Lordships on a previous Amendment.
As I said, I do not want to press this Amendment, because I think the wording is suitable only as a basis of argument, and I am not tied to it. But I would ask the noble and learned Viscount not to dismiss it lightly. However blunt he likes to be, I can be equally blunt on the other side. There has never been one complaint about this agreement since 1941, and / think that shows great merit. There has never beer any industrial dispute in this trade, and that says something for the good conditions, the hours and the payments. I am sure that if this Bill goes through as at present drafted, future conditions in the industry will not be so happy as conditions have been in the past.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are really two points raised by the noble Lord. The first point to which he is committed in the Amendment is that where there is a trade union agreement statutory restrictions need not apply—and I do not see why there should be any limitation of that kind if the principle is accepted at all. Then there is the separate point whether, and, if so, which, petrol pump attendants should be treated as shop assistants. The Bill provides that shop assistants should be given a weekly half holiday, but the Amendment of the noble Lord says not if there is a trade union agreement. And then he has quoted a great deal of detail. I must tell the noble Lord bluntly that the Trades Union Congress General Council have been fully consulted about the employment provisions of the Bill, including this one, and they fully support them; indeed, they want the Bill to go further, as we heard the other day. The Trades Union Congress General Council do not consider that agreements are any substitute for basic statutory safeguards. That is the only issue between the noble Lord and myself on this Amendment. I do not regard it as a matter of draftsmanship, but as a matter of principle.
It so happens that, although I normally find myself having to argue this case against members of my own Party, I like

971
the opposite case just as little when it comes from a member of the Party opposite as when it comes from the more extreme members of my own Party. Social progress in this country has come from basic statutory safeguards. It is true that I am only a person with a professional background, and I am aware that the noble Lord has a deeper knowledge of the trade. But sometimes one's own background is misleading as well as of advantage, and I am certain that I act in the general tradition of social reform in this country if I resolutely refuse to substitute a valuable statutory safeguard in the interests of the employees simply because a trade union agreement has been made. I should personally think that, even if I were to yield the principle, the only result would be that it would be totally unenforceable and would lead to doubt and difficulty on both sides, since I cannot conceive that in any legal proceedings for failing to give an assistant a statutory weekly half-holiday it could be ascertained with any clarity whether a trade union agreement existed covering that particular shop assistant and that particular employer, and, if so, whether it was reached between bodies or persons substantially representative of the employers or workpeople in that particular trade, So much, therefore, for the general principle.
I now look at the other side of the matter. I think the noble Lord should have made it plain to the Committee that under the 1950 Act petrol filling station attendants are shop assistants—that is the present legal position—and at present they have to be given a weekly half-holiday. The effect of the Amendment would be to take away their weekly half-holiday. So far as I know, under the 1950 Act no garages have failed to carry on for this reason, and I cannot see why, simply because we propose to carry on the same provisions in this Bill, they should close down now. Therefore, although I hope I shall not be accused of being either intransigent or unreasonable in the handling of Amendments, I must stand firm on this one.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, I think it would be proper for me to say a few words, because I approach this matter from a rather different trade angle from
972
that of my noble friend. He quite rightly pointed out to me privately that he was not in any way wedded to the wording of the Amendment. With regard to the general question of principle in dealing with the matter of statutory protection of the social conditions desired by organised labour, I am bound to say that the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is the right one. I am advised by the organised trade union side, covering shop assistants and distributive workers, that they cannot contemplate having the amendment to the law which would be the result if my noble friend's Amendment as at present worded were incorporated in the Bill. I want to make that quite clear.
On the other hand, it is obvious that, in speaking of industry generally, one often finds that there is a particular trade or practice which it is essential to carry on for the benefit of the general public in extraordinary hours and conditions. Then it is up to the trade unions concerned to organise the best possible working agreement they can through the joint industrial wages council. My submission to my noble friend is that it is no answer to the general case of pressing for steady progress in social reform and leisure for the worker to injure the general position under the Statute of a right to a half-holiday. Therefore I take the view on this particular issue which is taken by the noble and learned Viscount opposite, and I am sure my noble friend will understand why I do so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I too, accept it 100 per cent. The noble and learned Viscount opposite was on such a good horse in putting forward his argument, a winner from the time it started, that he forgot to listen to my case. I do not blame him for that. I put down the Amendment only to raise the whole position. I have said that I am not tied to the wording of it, and as the argument has proceeded it appears now to me to be terribly bad. I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount and my noble Leader said. I have been a responsible industrialist and Chairman of a National Industrial Council, and I would not do one thing to impair the principle. But the folly is that these establishments should ever have been classified as retail shops. The people who work in them are mechanics and come

973
under the engineering agreements of the country, and can never be shop assistants.
All I am going to do is to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Amendment, and I will put down another Amendment on the Report stage which will keep intact the principle which both the noble Viscount and my noble Leader have enunciated and make it more specific. That is where my practice and the theory of the noble and learned Viscount clash; and, if I may say so with respect, my practice is better. He has said that the 1950 Act made a petrol filling station and a repair shop a retail shop and ensured that the assistants should have a half-day holiday a week. But they have never had it, because this agreement has been in force; and they would rather have this one because they are mechanics for most of the time. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would like to try to come to an agreement on this matter. Perhaps we might arrange some consultations with his advisers—because I will tell him this quite frankly: if this provision goes through as it stands, it will be honoured more in the breach than in the observance; and I am sure that that is not what he wants, and it is not what I want. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILVERTON: This is only an instance of my temerity in trying to clarify the drafting. Subsection (2) of this clause allows a shopkeeper riot to grant a half-holiday in two of the three weeks of Christmastide—the week within which Christmas Day falls, the week immediately before Christmas, and the week immediately after. If he does so, the assistant must he given a whole holiday on two days over the holiday period, as specified in Clause 63 (2). It seems to me that the clause, as worded, is far from clear. It might almost appear that four whole holidays are to be granted. The Amendment merely seeks to clarify the drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 11, after ("assistant") insert ("two whole holidays, namely").—(Lord Milverton.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am obliged to my noble friend for drawing this point to our attention. I am advised that the
974
Amendment is unnecessary, and that the clause is not susceptible of any misunderstanding without it. I am bound to say that on the whole I agree with that advice. I think the best plan is to leave the clause as it is. I do not believe that the Amendment would do any harm, but nor do I believe that it would do any good.
LORD MILVERTON: In view of the noble Viscount's assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.23 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE LORD COLERAINE moved, in sub section (2),(a), to leave out paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert:
"two half holidays on business days between;he immediately preceding first day of December and the immediately succeeding thirty-first day of January."
The noble Lord said: The clause, as it stands, provides that where a shop is closed or Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and where there is no early closing in either those weeks, the shop assistant shall receive two half-holidays within the four weeks succeeding each of those holidays. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that those two half-holidays should be given in the four weeks preceding Christmas or in the four weeks after Christmas, or, to be more accurate, between December I before Christmas and January 31 after Christmas. If my noble friend sees his way to accept this Amendment, I think he will agree that nobody would be prejudiced or inconvenienced. The shop assistant would not be inconvenienced, and the public would not be inconvenienced.
It does occur to me, however, since I heard my ruble friend's observations on an earlier Amendment that I moved about the position of local authorities, that there may be some objection to this Amendment from local authorities, on the grounds that it may be more difficult to enforce the clause over a period of two month s than it is over a period of one month. I do not believe there is a great deal of force in that argument. After all, there are only two ways in which the local authority can enforce the clause—by questioning the assistant, and by inspecting the records. It is difficult to believe that it would add greatly to the inspector's difficulty if he had to inspect records covering a period of two

975
months, instead of one, or if he had to question the shop assistant on events occurring in two months, instead of one.
Be that as it may, and even if there is some marginal inconvenience to the local authority. I do not believe that it is anything like the inconvenience which might be caused to the shopkeeper. As my noble friend no doubt realises, the period after Christmas is one of the busiest periods in the whole year, because it comprises the annual stocktaking; and it might cause serious inconvenience, even serious difficulty, if the shopkeeper were obliged to release the whole of his staff for two extra half-days during the stocktaking period. I hope, therefore, that if my noble friend is disposed to reject my proposal, he will at least be able to give me the assurance that he will have this point considered, to see whether there is much force in the objections of the local authorities if, indeed, they do make objection to my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 14, leave out paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Coleraine.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think my noble friend has really said everything which can be said in favour of this Amendment and almost everything which can be said against it—that is, that the local authorities would find it difficult to enforce. My own judgment is that the balance of convenience is in favour of my noble friend rather than of the local authorities, but I am not at the moment authorised by my right honourable friend to make a concession in the matter. We will consider it further. The only qualification which I would make is that I am not quite sure how long the consideration would take. Ordinarily, when I make a concession, I like to be able to clear the situation up by Report stage, in order that the noble Lord, if he is not satisfied with the outcome, can have his remedy in putting down a new Amendment. In this case, I am not sure whether I shall be in a position to do as much, but I hope that I have said enough to show that at any rate I am sympathetic.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I quite appreciate the general aim of the noble Lord who moved
976
the Amendment, and I am glad to know that further consideration is to be given to it. But I beg the noble Viscount to remember that a substantial part of the labour side of the retail trade is organised, and it is not satisfying to those who try to improve the status of the workers to find that there is a tendency to go on spreading out this period. We want them to have as many days rest as possible when public holidays occur. This kind of thing may work very well in connection with, say a small shop. with the proprietor and one man who work in together and make an arrangement between themselves, but there would be general disappointment among the organised workers of the retail trade if it were to lead to a further breaking up of the time they were given off at any of these public holidays. It may not be as bad as it appears at first sight, but I hope that, when the noble Viscount gives further consideration to it, he will bear in mind that the retail worker, quite apart from his week or two weeks holiday, likes to get as many days of public holiday time off together as possible, and not have them broken up in three or four pieces.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I rather doubt if that would be necessarily upset if I accepted my noble friend's Amendment. The Bill as it stands allows for compensatory half-holidays at Christmas time. The feature of my noble friend's Amendment is that it allows compensatory holidays to be given in advance, and it is that, of course, which renders it difficult of enforcement. I do not think that, if it can be enforced and is observed, it necessarily deprives a shop assistant of any holidays round about Christmas time, although I suppose that shop assistants themselves would be the first to recognise that Christmas time is not perhaps the easiest time in their particular occupation.
I certainly do not want to commit the Government at this stage. My own feeling remains rather as I said to my noble friend: that the balance of advantage has to be considered in each case, and that is in favour of the Amendment. But if strong representations were made on the lines of the noble Viscount's speech, I know they would weigh with, and be

977
taken into account by, my right honourable friend in coming to a conclusion about the matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It means that if a man is going to have to take his days off earlier, during the month, say, of March or the first part of April, and not immediately following the Easter week-end, he may miss an opportunity, after the Friday, say, to have his Sunday, Monday and Tuesday all together in one period of rest.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps my noble friend will remind me about this point because it has slipped my mind. This particular Amendment is concerned simply with the Christmas holidays. I am not sure whether he has some Amendment down in respect of Easter holidays, but these two Amendments are concerned, with Christmas only.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am looking at Amendment No. 66 in advance.
LORD COLERAINE: The Easter holiday, the Good Friday holiday, I dealt with when I was moving an earlier Amendment, and my noble friend said then that he would give the matter consideration. I do not think I am competent to enter into detailed argument with the noble Viscount on these matters. For my part, I shall be fully satisfied if the noble Viscount and his right honourable friend will give further consideration to this Amendment and to the arguments both for it and against it. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Intervals for meals and rest
38.—(l) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act relating to special exceptions, a shop assistant shall not be employed to work continuously about the business of a shop for a spell of more than five hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal or rest:
Provided that on a day on which, by virtue of this Part of this Act, such an assistant falls to be allowed a half-holiday, the spell may be increased to five and a half hours.
6.34 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (l), after "shop assistant" to insert:
"and any person employed as a shop assistant for not more than twenty-live hours in any week".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 97 which we have not yet reached, and so what in effect I am asking your Lordships to tray is that, if you accept this Amendment, you will accept No. 97 when we come to it. If your Lordships do not accept this Amendment, we can deal with No. 97 when we come to it. Amendment No. 97 is to alter the definition of a shop assistant. There, I shall move to insert "for more than twenty-five hours in any week". The result of that will be that, in so far as this Bill is concerned, somebody working for twenty-four hours a week or less will not be covered by the benefits given to a shop assistant unless otherwise specified. I have chosen the figure of twenty-five hours a week for this reason. Long ago, in 1934, in the Shops Act, a differentiation was made between part-time end whole-time workers. Dealing with young persons, the Act did not apply to those who worked twenty-five hours a week or less; so I have brought in the same figure of twenty-five hours.
In retail shops there are, as I know, many part-time workers, mostly married women, who are employed for a few hours a day, in the rush hours. It seems wrong, or not very sensible, that those people, who may work only fifteen or eighteen hours a week, should be covered by the clauses of this Bill giving the same half-holidays and whole holidays as the whole-time worker gets. So I have put these words in Amendment No. 97 really to exclude them from the working of this Bill as regards half-holidays. But now I come to the Amendment about which I am talking, No. 67, which deals with rest hours and meal hours. Here I am moving the insertion of words to ensure that the Bill will also cover
"any person employed as a shop assistant for not more than twenty-five hours in any week"—
a person who would not, if my eventual Amendment is accepted, be covered by the regulation; about resting during working hours. I hope I have made my point clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 37, after ("assistant") insert the said words.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: May I put a point before the noble Viscount replies to the noble Lord? There are some aspects about the manner in which he has spoken of the two Amendments which seemed to me for a time possibly to come within the spirit of the Gowers Report. When I look more closely at the Amendment which happens to come first on our list of Amendments, and which alters the definition of a shop assistant for the purpose of these benefits, then I have a certain feeling of alarm as to what the effect of the Amendment could be. The words
"employed…for not more than twenty-five hours in any week"
at least in the Statute itself when passed, would not give any definition as to how the twenty-five hours were to be regarded. If we were going to remove the statutory obligation providing that a worker must not be worked beyond a certain number of hours on a given day without proper provision for mealtime, we should have to make certain that the twenty-five hours were spread over about six days, to make sure that the real intention was not being contravened. In the case of a regular, fully-employed shop worker, it must be provided, for example, that he must not work more than five hours without a proper meal. If he is going to work less than that and do so in the course of two or three days, why should there not be reasonable statutory protection that such a worker should not be on his feet for more than twenty-five hours? I am willing to be the recipient of explanations, but it seems to me fundamental, if we are going to change the definition, that we must make sure that safeguards upon human grounds are not omitted.
LORD DERWENT: I am not sure whether I have made my point clear to the noble Viscount. This Amendment deals with intervals for meals and rest. We have put twenty-five hours or less a week into the clause which protects them for meals and rest. What I am trying to do here is to protect those people for meals and rest time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I hope I did not misunderstand the noble Lord. I said that when he first began to talk I thought he was
980
talking within the spirit of the Gowers Committee. As he went on, I had my doubts.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not absolutely sure that I have got it right either. However, I will do my best. The difficulty is no fault of my noble friend, who is really in the position of arguing two Amendments at the same time. The substantive Amendment is the one to Clause 64. What he is seeking to do in this Amendment is to give back in advance a small part of what he is going to take away from the part-time assistant in Clause 64. The substantial question in considering this Amendment is not its own merits, because we are agreed in advance that "part-timers" should obtain what they are given in this Amendment. The question is whether it would be right to take away what is proposed to be taken away in Clause 64. There, I confess, I am not with my noble friend. I do not think it is right to take away what is proposed to be taken away in Clause 64. My own view on the draftsmanship of his Amendment—and I think he probably intended it—is that it also takes away the meal interval provision in Clause 32 (2) as well, leaving the meal interval provision in Clause 38 (1). So that he is proposing to take away the half-holiday provision in Clauses 37 and 43, the Sunday provision in Clauses 39 to 41 inclusive, and the meal interval provision in Clause 38 (2). That is a considerable inroad upon the Bill in respect of part-time assistants.
The Bill was intended to make reasonable and flexible provision for part-timers. To give a striking example, the 4 hours provision in Clause 43 (1) (a) is a new provision which has been specially designed for part-timers, and it would have no bearing if this Amendment or the consequential Amendment were accepted. I cannot myself see why the Sunday provisions do not work well enough in their place. If an assistant is employed on a Sunday but not on every weekday the requirements of Clause 39, about time off in lieu of Sunday employment, have been complied with; so I do not see that any hardship is involved in regard to the employer. As I think the noble Viscount opposite said, it tends to involve one in casuistry to attempt to define what a part-

981
timer is in relation to any particular number of hours per week. Broadly speaking, the view of the Government is that the provisions of the Bill should apply to part-timers as they do to whole-timers, but that the way in which the Bill has been drafted safeguards the employer from ally injustice. For that reason, I would advise the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: May I ask my noble friend one question about Sundays? Sunday may, of course, be the only day on which these people work. The fact that a person is not there on the other days does not mean that he is given a paid half holiday, does it? Sometimes shops employ a person on Sundays but not during the rest of the week. Is such a person to be given a half-holiday and be paid for it? That would seem to be unfair. He may be working for somebody else for five or six days in the week. If what the noble Viscount has said is correct, does it mean that a person who works on Sunday, must he given a half day and be paid for it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have riot so read it, though without notice I should not like to give an opinion on that.
LORD DERWENT: In view of what has been said, but before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to ask the noble Viscount to consider whether, by being over-fair to people who work only a few hours a week—I am not wedded to 25 hours; it could be less—it would not, in fact, inflict a considerable hardship on shopkeepers who also have to be considered in this matter. If the hardship is as severe as I think, some of these people who count on a little extra part-time work may not be employed, and then the public will suffer. That, I think, is a point that I should ask the noble Viscount to look at again. I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Sunday work]:
6.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1) (a), to omit "or was, in the immediately preceding week," The noble Earl said: I can explain the point of this Amendment quite briefly. It is purely an enforcement Amendment. I admit that considerations of the convenience of the enforcing author ties must be balanced
982
against considerations of the convenience of shop assistants and shopkeepers. Of course, the noble Viscount is in a better position than I am to appreciate such considerations. He said earlier that he realised that it is more difficult for enforcing authorities to deal with holidays in advance than with holidays that are held after the date on which the holiday would normally be given. This clause deals with compensatory holidays for people who work either a half-day or a whole day on Sunday. As it stands, it entitles a shop assistant to a compensatory holiday either before a Sunday or after it. What my Amendment proposes is that the compensatory holiday should fall during the six clays after the Sunday. That is the enforcement point which I should like the noble Viscount to consider. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 17, leave out from ("Sunday") to ("allowed") in line 18.—(The Earl of Listowel.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that it is my intention, after this Amendment, to move that the House do resume, with a view to the Adjournment being moved. I should like to thank noble Lords who have played such a useful part in this debate for their helpfulness in assisting me in this difficult and, so far as I am concerned, maiden task of trying to pilot a Bill through a House of Parliament. I am sorry that I cannot en I up by accepting an Amendment; it would be much nicer to do so. The view of the Government towards this Amendment is that, on the whole, it makes for undue rigidity. In this Bill we are following the present law in relation to this particular matter, and the Amendment would constitute a departure from it in the direction of rigidity, which on the whole is something we are anxious to avoid. We are anxious not to make compliance with the Sunday employment provisions more onerous than they are at present, and it would have the effect of rendering them to that degree more onerous. I see that it can be said that a compensatory holiday in advance is slightly more difficult to enforce than a compensatory holiday in arrear. Against that, one has to balance the rigidity. On the whole, I would resist the Amendment, but without any complaint that it was moved.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I thank the noble Viscount for his extremely fair answer. I do not feel in a position to resist it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
House resumed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY PURCHASE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.