Lords Sitting of 26 March 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

CHELSEA CAR MART
2.36 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords I 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 whether they are aware that a site in Chelsea acquired by the London County Council before the war for use as a fire station is now being used by a Mr. Thomas Bruce as a car mart, notwithstanding the opposition of local residents and of the Chelsea Borough Council; on what date Mr. Bruce acquired his interest in the land; on what date he applied to the London County Council as planning authority for permission for the structural alterations which he has now made and for the change of use; and whether, when, and on what terms the London County Council gave him permission.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The dates in question are respectively January 14, January 16, and March 25, 1957, all in this year. The following conditions have been attached to the permission:

(1) It will be for a limited period expiring April 1, 1958;

(2) A modified form of floodlighting must be provided to the Council's satisfaction; and this must: be switched off by 7.30 p.m.;

(3) The King's Road frontage will be laid out as an ornamental garden;

731

(4) No building or structure or erection will be erected or maintained on the site;

(5) Vehicles will use only the Dove-house Street entrance, and the pedestrian access to King's Road will be reduced in width to 7 ft. 6 ins.;

(6) No repairs will be carried out to vehicles on the site.

LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and wish to ask him this further question. Does he realise that permission was not granted until yesterday; that the development has been carried out without any permission but with the knowledge and, presumably, the connivance of the planning authority who were this man's landlords? Is my noble friend further aware that the development conflicts with the development plan and is a matter of dispute between the planning authority and the local authority? In these circumstances, has his right honourable friend the power to take this matter over and consider the application himself?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my right honourable friend is well aware that there is some dispute between the London County Council and the Chelsea Borough Council on this matter, but he would not be prepared to interfere. The reason is that the London County Council are the planning authority for the neighbourhood. I am aware that permission was granted yesterday by the London County Council, but I am not aware whether work took place on the site before the date the permission was granted.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, has the Minister not inquired whether—what is notoriously well known by anybody in that district—work had been proceeding on that site? Since the Borough Council obviously represent directly both the residents and the amenities most concerned, and in the circumstances elicited by my noble friend, is it not a case in which the Government might properly intervene?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I do not think my right honourable friend would be inclined to intervene on a matter which concerns entirely the London County Council as planning authority for London.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, would my noble friend bring to the notice of his right honourable friend the Minister that the reason the London County Council installed this man here was to get rid of him in Stockwell where they had already commenced legal proceedings against him? Will my noble friend consider whether, in those circumstances, it is not clear that the London County Council did not bring to the consideration of this problem the matters which it was their duty as a planning authority to consider?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am not aware of all these details. Legislation lays down that the London County Council should be the planning authority for London, and my right honourable friend would not wish to intervene. And for my part, I should be very reluctant to see him do so.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they do not agree that the huge floodlit advertisement hoarding on this site is also a great eyesore; and, if so, will they urge the local authority not to give permission for the erection of advertisements of this kind in places of particular architectural interest?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to that point. As I have said, these lights will be switched off at 7.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that all those who are connected with the London County Council will be extremely grateful for the noble Earl's statement, which is not only correct but extremely important as a matter of principle. I am sure he agrees that the London County Council always go to the Minister when they are obliged by Statute to do so, and that when powers are conferred by Statute the Council should be allowed to exercise them without interference.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether I correctly understood the position: that the Minister has powers under the legislation as it stands to intervene, but that as a matter of discretion decided in this case not to intervene?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think it is correct that my right honourable friend has powers to intervene, but he would not intervene except in circumstances of the gravest moment.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, are there not here circumstances that would justify special intervention, as my noble friend has brought out? In this case, the London County Council have obviously had in their mind other considerations than those they would have had in mind had there been an application from another proprietor for the use of this site in this way, in which case they would presumably have acted in a judicial spirit which they are hardly able to in the circumstances brought out by my noble friend.

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to make a statement in this House to-day with regard to the present industrial dispute situation?
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I will, with the permission of your Lordships, seek leave to intervene at about a quarter to four, in order to make a statement about the present industrial situation.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister, the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, two questions. The first is whether, in view of the fact that the Bill has already been before the House so long, there is any substance in the still spread rumour that it is not the Government's intention to proceed with the Bill in all its stages this Session; and,
734
secondly, whether or not it is the case, as has been suggested in the Press, that the Government have made up their minds to accept an Amendment to revert to the 8 o'clock late hour closing? It is quite fortuitous, as I gave the noble Viscount notice of the question last week, that there is in The Times newspaper this morning a leader, obviously inspired by some organised reaction to the Bill, which describes the Bill as "a bad Bill". I hope very much that the Government, in their endeavours to bring the law into its proper form, in the light of the ten-years' old Report of the Gowers Committee, do not intend to give way to pressure.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I certainly was not aware, and I am very shocked to hear, that the Bill has been before the House too long. I hope the noble Viscount is not suggesting that we have been dealing with it otherwise than in the most expeditious way possible. I was under the impression that we had, in fact, attempted to be conciliatory, and therefore had not tried to curtail discussion in any way, but that we had dealt with the matter to the general satisfaction of noble Lords on both sides of the House. I can only say, as I said to the noble Viscount on February 12, that we intend to go on with our business. As regards the second part of his question, I have had no notice of it, and I should like to see it on the Paper.
LORD REA: My Lords, the noble Viscount has rather indicated that this Bill should go through. That is a point of view supported by the Government and by his Party, but it has been opposed by noble Lords on these Benches. I think it only reasonable to say at this stage that if some such Amendment as has been suggested were put forward we, at least, should support it; but, failing that, I think that we should oppose the passage of the Bill either on Report stage or on Third Reading.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 66:
Provisions as to libraries
66.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, the business of lending books or periodicals for the purpose of gain shall be deemed to be retail

735
business, but Part I of this Act shall not apply to—

(a) a library at which the business of lending books or periodicals for the purpose of gain is not carried on otherwise than for the purpose of making profits—

(i) for a philanthropic or charitable object (including a religious or eductional object); or

(ii) for a club or institution which is not carried on for purposes of gain; or

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice of four Amendments in subsection (1), the first being to leave out the first "or" and after "periodicals," where that word first occurs, to insert, "gramophone records or cinematograph films". The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak to Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 together, as they all cover the same subject matter. If the Gowers Committee had sat ten years later, I think they might well have reported in favour of what we want to do by means of these Amendments, because they simply cover events which have happened since the Gowers Committee reported. This clause seeks to bring ordinary lending libraries into the same category as businesses, for the purposes of the Bill, so that they also will have the same limitations about closing, and so on, with the one exception that charitable libraries, libraries that are run on a non-profit-making basis, will be exempted. Since the war, in London, at any rate—I cannot speak for other great towns—the business of lending gramophone records and films has also grown up and become a form of lending on a commercial basis very comparable with the lending of books. All I am seeking to do in these Amendments is to bring the lending of gramophone records and films for commercial purposes into line with the lending of books by libraries, so that the same restrictions apply to firms engaged in this modern business development. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 7, leave our (" or ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Strathclyde): I have listened with great care to what the noble Earl has said in support of the Amendment. He spoke of what the Gowers Committee might have reported if it had sat ten years later, but I would
736
remind him that in the year 1953 the proposals were circulated to some sixty-six different organisations, including the local authorities, and I would tell the noble Earl that, until he put down this Amendment, this proposal had never been discussed, or even mentioned, by any of those particular organisations. It may well be that there is a case on abstract grounds for the principle of treating these libraries in the same way as the libraries which lend books—I would agree with that—but at this moment we are not aware that there is any practical need for the restrictions. I would say to the noble Earl that the Government's general attitude to the Bill is that restrictions should be applied only where, on reasonable balance of consideration, they can be shown to be necessary. So far, a case for the Amendment on these grounds does not seem to me, or to the Government, to be made out.
There is a further consideration which I should like to put to your Lordships. We do not know what the practical effect of applying the Bill to film and record libraries might be. If the Amendment were to be accepted, there might be quite unexpected and unintended consequences. The Bill is a very complicated piece of legislation, and it would be impossible to rule out repercussions of that kind. It is for these reasons that I must tell the noble Earl that I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment. I would ask him to withdraw it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With great respect, I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying that I have never before heard such an unsatisfactory reply to an Amendment. Is he not aware that there is a modern tendency among all local authorities who provide that most necessary lending-library service now to have record libraries? It is common practice, the more so, perhaps, in rural areas than in urban areas. That is the modern trend. Parliament is here to legislate. Parliament does not follow the dictates of representations made to them by vested interests. Surely Parliament is something more than a rubber stamp. The noble Lord has said that the Government have not had representations over these ten years from all the interests concerned. Surely he does not mean to imply that Parliament must not do anything about it until it has seen the repercussions upon

737
vested interests. I do not think there is any vested interest at all connected with my noble friend's Amendment. I should have thought that the noble Lord would at least have said that he would take it back and thoroughly consider it, as it deserves to be considered, instead of saying that he must resist it upon grounds which I think, if he will forgive my saying so, are totally inadequate.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I would only say, in reply to that comment, that the noble Lord's knowledge of these things is evidently much wider than mine or that of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, who referred to London only. I do not know whether the noble Lord would be prepared to provide me with a list of these local authorities—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, I will do it now.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord will allow me to continue. Perhaps he would supply me with such a list, because it is outwith my knowledge, and, as I am advised, there is no general need for this particular Amendment. I have already explained the Government's attitude towards the Bill as a whole.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With great respect, why should I do the noble Lord's work? Surely his advisers at the Home Office who are sponsoring this Bill are able to get the information that I have imparted to the noble Lord. They can communicate with every local authority or county council in this country. They will soon tell the noble Lord which of them provide a lending library for records as well as for books. Surely it does not rest with the Opposition to have to tell the Government where to get this information.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I noticed that the noble Lord said he thought that there was a good deal to be said in favour of this Amendment on abstract grounds. Perhaps he would not disagree with me if I were to substitute the word "logical" for "abstract." If that is the case—and it appears to be so—it seems rather strange to resist the Amendment. I think his principal argument was that there was not sufficient demand for this change to be made. I have raised the example of London because that is the only example with which I personally am
738
familiar. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth referred to other local authorities. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, if between now and Report stage my noble friend and I are able to produce more evidence of the demand on the part of local authorities for this change, the Government will be willing to reconsider this Amendment. I would also express the hope that in the meantime the noble Lord himself might be willing to do a little research.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Perhaps I should go a little further than I have gone. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was, I think, referring to local authority libraries. Of course, these are not affected by the operation of the Bill: only commercial libraries are concerned here. But certainly I will look at the point again.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this Amendment again. On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76:
Short title, commencement and extent
76.—
(2) This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
2.56 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that such order shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be of no effect unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution by each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: If it is not too far back in the dim and distant past, the Committee will recollect the discussions we had on Clause 49 of the Bill in dealing with Amendments Nos. 82, 83, 84 and 85. I then pointed out the difficulties that would arise in putting into operation Part VI of this Bill, after the duties of administration had been transferred from county councils to district councils. I said that there would be duplication and other difficulties, especially in view of the fact that it was known at the time when I was speaking that the Government had in

739
view a reorganisation of local authority responsibility. Since I made those remarks—I think it must be now about three weeks ago—the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made an announcement that during next Session the Government intend to introduce legislation with reference to the reorganisation of local authority responsibility.
The Committee will remember that when I raised the whole question of administration I asked the Government whether it was their intention to bring this measure into operation before 1959. I then said that if this measure, with its duplications and its transfer of responsibility from the Shops Act, 1950, is going to be brought into operation before the Government are ready with their reorientation of local authority administration, confusion would be worse confounded. I have not altered my opinion, in spite of the arguments and the speech made by the noble Viscount who was then speaking on behalf of the Government.
The Amendment I now move is a simple one. If it is adopted, subsection (2) will read:
"This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
Provided that such order shall be contained in a Statutory Instrument which shall be of no effect unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
In other words, what I seek to get from the Government is acceptance of the fact that Parliament shall have an opportunity of discussing in the context of this Bill any alterations that will have to be made to this Bill, or Act, as it will be, when the Government have made up their minds, and Parliament has acquiesed or otherwise, in regard to the new duties of local authorities.
I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply will be impressed with the seriousness of the position. Duties are to be altered, responsibilities are to be placed upon local district councils which may or may not be in existence in the state of things to come. They may have their boundaries altered; they may have their responsibilities altered. They may not wish, in their new status, to assume the responsibilities that are put upon them in this Bill. Surely I need not impress upon
740
the noble Lord who is going to reply the necessity of ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity of seeing that what it finally approves is in this Act, as the Bill will become—and in parenthesis, I repeat what my noble Leader has said: we gather that the Government are going on with this Bill. If the Government do go on with it, and it gets on to the Statute Book before the reorganisation of local authorities, surely Parliament should have the opportunity of seeing whether all the responsibilities which have been placed upon various local authorities—county councils and district councils—will then be fitting for the new organisation to bear. That is the simple reason for my Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 21, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: Without in any way wishing to derogate from my noble friend's argument, which I think is a very important one, I should like to say a word on the general principle of making a Bill come into operation at some uncertain date in the future which the Secretary of State may by order appoint. Normally a Bill comes into operation when it is passed, or it may come into operation on a fixed date which is stated in the Bill. But it must be very rarely that a Bill is left, as it were, in the air, with no date fixed for its coming into operation, and it is left entirely to a Minister to decide by order some date in the future when it is going to come into operation.
This Bill involves important changes to the business community. Their hours are going to be shortened generally, but in some cases they are going to be lengthened. It is only fair to the business community as well as to the shopping community that they should have good notice of when this Bill is going to come into operation. Unless there is some good reason which has not been disclosed, I cannot understand why it should be left in this uncertain state. So I very much hope that it will be possible to look into this question (I think it is an important one) and either fix a date for the Bill to come into operation or fix no date, in which case it comes into operation on the passing of the Bill.

741
I realise (and I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will not make a debating point of this) that this is not exactly my noble friend's point. His point is that the Bill should not come into operation until the whole question of local government has been determined. That is quite a separate question and is one which is well worthy of being dealt with on its merits. I am taking the constitutional question. I cannot think of any Bill with regard to which it has been left open merely for a Minister to decide, possibly at the shortest possible notice, when it will come into operation. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will address himself to that point as well as to the point made by my noble friend.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I address myself first to the argument which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The Amendment commences with the words
"Provided that such order shall be contained in a statutory instrument."
The Bill already provides for that in Clause 55 (2). If the noble Lord will look at it he will see that it is there laid down. I realise the other consideration which the noble Lord has in mind. I am aware that the county councils want transfer of responsibility deferred until local government reorganisation has taken place. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be satisfied if I give him this assurance: that the position in regard to local government reorganisation will be one of the factors which the Home Secretary will take into account before making an order. Further, the Home Secretary will also consult with the local authority associations. In that way I think we shall get over the difficulty which the noble Lord has stressed, because it is clear that the Home Secretary would not make an order until his consultations with local authority associations had been completed. He would also take into account the effect of local government reorganisation.
Lord Silkin's point was a somewhat different one. He raised the whole question of the principle involved here; the uncertainty of the date of operation and the fact of the Bill's being brought into operation as the result of a decision by the Minister concerned. Certainly there are important changes; but this Bill is so intricate in many of its details that I
742
think it is well that plenty of time should be given for everyone concerned to be consulted and for the fullest consideration to be given. The noble Lord I am sure appreciates that it is not only local authorities but the business community, as he said, who are concerned. I cannot see any need to fear that the Minister will bring the Act into operation before he has given plenty of time for consultation and for consideration. I think this period must in essence be unlimited, to give everyone an opportunity to understand what the Act is all about. Perhaps in these circumstances the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very appreciative of what the noble Lord has said. Of course, having consultation with interested parties and having consultation with local authorities is a different thing from having consultation with Parliament. I hope the noble Lord will not think that this is one of my prejudices, but one becomes accustomed to Governments thinking that after they have agreed with the vested interest concerned "that is that" and Parliament must act as a rubber stamp. I have always quarrelled with that view. I feel that the Government must get the endorsement of Parliament on this matter. I am not saying it is not necessary to carry vested interests with you, if possible—I use the expression "vested interests" in no offensive sense; I mean local authority interests or industrial interests. It is necessary to carry them with you. But whether they agree or whether they do not, the noble Lord really has said that then, without coming to Parliament, the Minister may make an order bringing the Act into force. That is my interpretation of what the noble Lord has said.
I quickly read Clause 55 but that does not help me very much. What I want the noble Lord to say is that, in view of the administrative difficulties of the Bill and the state of flux in which the Government find themselves, vis-à-vis this Bill and local authority reorganisation, they will not make the statutory order bringing this Bill into operation, irrespective of any consultations they may have, without first coming to Parliament. I think that in a serious and far-reaching matter like this Parliament should have the last word; it should not rest with the Department. The Department have

743
had consultations on this Bill with local authorities for almost as long as the Gowers Report has been in circulation, and there are still major disagreements with the local authorities on the Bill. I think that Parliament should be able to debate it and any difference of opinion that may exist in future before the step is taken of bringing this Bill into operation by a simple declaration of the Secretary of State.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I really do not see the force of the noble Lord's argument. The noble Lord referred to a "rubber stamp". Surely he would not argue that all the proceedings on this Bill in this House have been of the nature of "rubber stamp". What is it that the House have to argue? The House will already have passed the Bill before we reach the point of bringing it into operation; it will have become an Act of Parliament. It is the will of Parliament that that Bill should be on the Statute Book. What are we going to argue about—the date from which the Minister says the Bill should operate? That does not give room for a great deal of discussion. Surely that is something which does not need to be discussed by Parliament. In the normal course of events, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, the Act would operate from the date on which it received the Royal Assent. Here, all the Government are doing is to postpone that date until such time as the Minister is absolutely sure in his own mind that I everything necessary to be done has been done. Local authorities have to make orders under this Bill, as well as other things. I honestly do not see the force of the argument which the noble Lord is putting forward.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I put this consideration before the noble Lord? This Bill places on small district councils the responsibility of setting up an organisation for a shop inspectorate, because heretofore these responsibilities have been vested in the county council. Here, if I may, I will go back a little. The noble Lord will remember that the Amendment to which I have just referred sought to give power to a district council, if they did not want to assume the responsibilities placed upon them by this Bill, to hand it over to the county council by arrangement with the
744
county council. That proposal was resisted by the Government. While in this Bill county councils may give powers they now possess to the district councils, the obverse was not acceptable. Why, I do not know. Let us suppose that when the Government bring in their Bill for the reorganisation of local government, some of the local authorities have their areas whittled down, their responsibilities altered or absorbed by others, and that some of them who have been compelled to set up organisations for the enforcement of this Bill when it becomes law, do not exist in the legislation which the Government are going to bring forward. What happens?
I am quite prepared to accept the noble Lord's assurance that no Minister worth calling a Minister is going to put into operation an Act that places responsibilities on non-existent bodies; but he has to find some method of putting these responsibilities on somebody, and that might well require some amendment to this Bill. Some of the local authorities who have these responsibilities placed on them will not know whether they are going to live or die. Surely it is not too much to ask that, before this is done, the Secretary of State shall come before Parliament with his proposals for doing this. I am not saying that they will not be passed. Surely it is not beyond the possibility that this kind of thing might happen. The noble Lord did not like my expression "rubber stamp," but that is what it will amount to unless we are going to give Parliament the power which I seek to give by this Amendment.
I am not going to press the Amendment, but will the noble Lord consider it, and the arguments that I have put forward, between now and the next stage? This is entirely an administrative matter. We want to know what is going to be done. The noble Lord will appreciate that the reason why the previous Shops Act has been brought into disrepute and, as his noble friend Lord Mancroft said on Second Reading, has become a "farrago of nonsense" is that the Act has become incapable of being put into operation. Let us learn from that experience and not follow the same foolish course that has been followed in the past. That is all I ask the noble Lord. If he will consider that, I will withdraw the Amendment.
3.18 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I came down to your Lordships' House to press the very constitutional point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I was going to raise it on the Motion that the clause stand part, but perhaps it is appropriate to touch on the matter now. I would not, with respect support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, because I do not think that it meets the constitutional point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I do not remember—my memory may well be at fault—many other Bills being passed by Parliament in which it says:
"This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint."
Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to cite other cases. It is certainly an unusual provision, that an administrative order shall be passed which will bring into effect a Bill which has passed through both Houses of Parliament and has received the Royal Assent. It seems to me that it would be much better if we could get away from this unsatisfactory vagueness of an administrative order, to be issued at any time the Secretary of State wishes, which would automatically bring into operation an Act which has had the Royal Assent. I think that this is a dangerous precedent for the future. There may in the future be Governments with other political complexions, and if we are to accept a position that, because Parliament passes a Bill which may have much wider provisions than those contained in this Bill, the present Bill is, so to speak, to be kept in suspense until it is a convenient time, from the point of view either of the Minister or of the Government, for it to come into operation, then I believe we shall be introducing something of a dangerous custom—I will not say "precedent"—and one that is certainly not to be encouraged.
The coming into operation of this Shops Bill, when it is an Act, will affect not only local authorities and Government Departments but many small citizens and business people, who may not read the Press widely and may not be aware of the issuing by the Minister of an order bringing the Bill into operation. Would it not be better if a fixed time could be set saying, for example,
746
that the Bill shall not come into operation until this day six months or a year hence? I would prefer to say that it shall be read this day six months hence, but that is another question. Would that not be preferable to giving the Executive power to implement, as and when the Executive wish, the decision of the Legislature? Would the Minister be good enough to consider that point between now and the next stage?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. The matter might have been argued one way or the other, as he readily admits. Though I cannot give him the actual Titles of the Acts, my information is that many Acts contain provisions postponing commencement of effect until the Minister decides. Delay is necessary because of regulations and orders which have to be made by the Secretary of State and local authorities. That is the reason for allowing the Minister to decide.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord is explaining why the Act cannot come into operation at once, but he is not explaining why a date cannot be fixed. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, spoke of a delay of six months, but I do not suppose he would object if it were six years.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No, I should not.
LORD SILKIN: But whether it be a year or two years, I urge the Government: fix a date, and within that time all the formalities can be carried out. That would be far more satisfactory.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I agree that it would be perfectly possible to fix a date a prescribed number of months ahead, and to insert that date in the Bill. I presume that the date is left indefinite because it is more convenient that it should be so; but I will report to my noble friend what the noble Lord has said, and he may give it consideration. I still do not follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, because the fact of the matter is that the Bill will have been passed and become an Act of Parliament, and will be on the Statute Book. That is the position. The noble Lord says, "Let it come back to Parliament again and let us amend the Act." But that cannot be done

747
except by passing another Act. I really do not see what the noble Lord wishes to do when the Act comes back.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 76 agreed to.
First Schedule:
PART II
GOODS WHOSE SALE IS PERMISSIBLE UNTIL LATER HOUR OR, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT LIMIT OF TIME
4. Sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery.
8. Newspapers, periodicals, magazines, guidebooks, picture post-cards and photographs.
9. Bread.
LORD MILVERTON: This Amendment and the next go together and they represent a minor attempt to try to clarify or make easier the working of the intention of the Act; and in speaking to this Amendment, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 109, 113, 118 and 119, all of them dealing with the same point—that as flour confectionery is excluded from the Schedules, shops inspectors must be able to advise shopkeepers which articles are deemed to be sugar confectionery. I understand that frequent requests for guidance in this matter are received from shopkeepers, and in the absence of a definition no consistent answer can be given. The result is that shops in the same street, where the boundaries of local authorities meet, may be given different advice, and the public may be able to buy an article in one shop yet be refused the same article in a neighbouring shop. Presumably it is intended that the sale of articles similar in kind to sweets shall be permitted outside the ordinary closing hours. Since a definition of "sugar confectionery" seems to be out of the question, and since no great hardship would be entailed by the deletion of sugar confectionery from the Schedules altogether, the course which these two Amendments suggest is submitted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 13, after (" sweets ") insert (" and ").—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: Perhaps I am the only Member of your
748
Lordships' House who is closely associated with the sugar confectionery business, and I am not sure that it would be wise to leave out the words "sugar confectionery". The three major associations connected with the business are the manufacturers' association, known as the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance; the wholesalers' association, represented by the National Association of Wholesale Confectioners; and the retailers' association, which is the National Association of Retail Confectioners. Sweets, as such, are never mentioned in the technical jargon of the confectionery business. The word "sweets" has become a general, common term used by the man in the street for all kinds of sweets—chocolates, as well as sugar confectionery—just as the term "candy" is used in the United States of America. I believe that it would be unwise to leave out the term "sugar confectionery". There is, of course, flour confectionery. I suggest that it would be wiser to leave it as "Sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery." Then every point of view will be met.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, for his explanation. The argument of my noble friend Lord Milverton was that the words "sugar confectionery" must give rise to doubt. The noble Lord will have heard what has been said in that connection by the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax. Her Majesty's Government are informed by the trade that the meaning of the term "sugar confectionery" is as clear as any such term can possibly be. It means articles mainly confected of sugar, as opposed to articles mainly confected of flour. If the words "and other sugar confectionery" were to be excluded, it would have an effect which is not intended by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. The term "sweets" means more than goods ordinarily sold in sweet shops. To give the Committee an example, it includes a certain kind of intoxicating liquor. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that "sweets" here, joined with the words "and other sugar confectionery", clearly does not include such items; but if the words "and sugar confectionery" were to be left out, there is the possibility that doubt would be very much increased. In these circumstances, I trust that the

749
noble Lord will be satisfied with the explanation I have given and will be kind efnough to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MILVERTON: In view of the assurances given by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph 8, to leave out: "and photographs". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is in line with the spirit of the Gowers Report. As your Lordships will remember, one of the recommendations of the Gowers Committee was that as many exemptions as possible from the restrictions on the opening hours of shops should be cut out; and this, I think, is an exemption that should not be made. I do not think photographs should be exempted as articles which may be sold at times when shops are closed for the sale of other articles. It seems to me that there is a case for museums and art galleries, but surely they are covered by the exemption of picture postcards; that is to say, the reproduction in picture postcard form of objects that have been shown in these museums or art galleries. There is no need for that purpose to include photographs.
Again, I can see that there is a case for the sale of photographs, which sometimes have to be done at short notice on an afternoon when other shops are closed; but they are specifically dealt with in the Second Schedule. Surely, however, the photography business is no different from the business of a shoemaker or a tailor. I cannot see why I should be able to go to a photographer and buy a photograph of myself or of Miss Marlene Dietrich on an afternoon when all the neighbouring shops are closed and I cannot buy a pair of shoes or a suit. It seems to me that there is little justification (I hope the noble Lord may be able to show that there is) for the inclusion of photographs among the articles that may be sold at hours when shops are closed for the sale of other articles. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 19, leave out ("and photographs ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD SILKIN: When the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replies, I should be
750
glad if he would explain what is meant by "photographs". Does it mean a portrait? It does not mean picture postcards, or the kind of photograph which you buy at the seaside. What is the justification for making it possible to buy photographs at any time of the day or night? I can understand a person's being seized with a sudden desire to buy ice cream or tobacco, or even a periodical, at a late hour. But is it necessary for a person to be able to buy a photograph outside the normal shopping hours? I am puzzled on two grounds. One is that without some definition of "photograph" it seems to cover far too wide a field; and the other is where the justification comes in for linking it up with newspapers, periodicals, guide books, or even, conceivably, a picture postcard, which one might want at all hours. I do not understand why a photograph should be included. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The object the Government have in view is to prevent what we consider to be an absurdity. You can purchase a postcard, which is, in fact, a photograph, except that it has an address place on the back. This Amendment would prohibit the purchase of exactly the same picture without the place for writing an address on the back. It seems to be an absurd distinction. There are many things that tourists want: for instance, there are those little booklets which one pulls out with photographs of the various surrounding places of interest. These are photographs, and we think they they should not be excluded. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me what a photograph is. I can only tell him that it is a photograph. We feel it is absurd that a photograph which has the place for an address on the back can be sold, but that exactly the same photograph, because it is plain on the back, cannot be sold. I may say in this connection that the Bill follows the present Act, and I can assure your Lordships that there is no evidence that the provision has been found to cause any real difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wondered why one should be able to buy photo-graphs, portraits, or whatever they might be. There are times when one wants a photograph quickly, as, for instance, in the case of a passport photograph.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Lord will observe that passport photographs are exempted in the next Schedule.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: That is one form of photograph, and I accept what the noble Earl says. I hope I have explained why "photographs" is included, and I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I must say that I am not very happy about that reply. It seems to me that the essential point is that there is no definition of what is a photograph. The result is that not only can photographs that are sold in art galleries, museums, and so on, which are not picture postcards—as the noble Lord said they have not a space on the back on which to write an address; no one would have any objection to those being sold outside the normal hours—be sold, but any photographer can sell a photograph of any person or any object at any time. It seems to me that this provision is much too wide, and that what is needed—it is beyond my ingenuity, but I am sure it is not beyond that of the Government draftsmen—is to define "photograph" in a way that will allow photographs that are sold in art galleries or museums to be included in the Bill and exempted from the ordinary closing restrictions, but will exclude the ordinary photographer's business, such as we see in any of the main streets of our large towns, from that privileged position as compared with other tradesmen, because their articles are exempted from the restrictions on opening hours of shops. I hope that between now and the Report stage the noble Lord will ask his advisers to turn their minds to the possibility of some definition which will narrow the meaning of the word "photograph" so that on both sides we can get what we want.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I intervene for a moment? I hope that we shall not try to find some technical definition of something that we all know. We must all know a photograph when we see it, just as we know a hippopotamus when we see it. But if the skilled draftsmen get busy trying to define what a photograph is, one does not know where it will lead us. I remember, as no doubt will the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that many years ago, when I was
752
President of the Board of Trade, somebody moved the adjournment of the House because my Under-Secretary was asked: "What is a blank?", and he replied, "A blank is a blank." That was a good answer. And a photograph is a photograph.
I should like to look at the question from the point of view of a person who is going to commit a criminal offence if he does something which is not permitted by this Bill. If you are to have some wonderful definition of "When is a photograph not a photograph?", nobody will know whether the kind of thing he is selling, which may be a picture postcard of Britain or of the Mona Lisa—it does not matter what it is—can be sold. On the other hand, if you leave the simple English word, or the mixed word "photograph", in, the man will know what he is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do. I hope that we shall not go in for any of these pseudo-scientific refinements.
LORD MANCROFT: Might I intervene for a moment to suggest that the House should resume for a short while in order to enable me to make a statement about the present situation of the strikes.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
3.41 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, direct negotiations began yesterday between the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on the Confederation's wages claim, but broke down late in the afternoon. Representatives of both sides were then invited to the Ministry of Labour for further discussions with my right honourable friend and his officers. It became clear that no progress was possible by way of conciliation, and he decided to appoint a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the dispute. In view of this decision the unions were asked to call off the strike. The unions have not yet given their answer to that request, but both they and the employers

753
have indicated their readiness to cooperate fully with the Court. The union representatives have had meetings with my right honourable friend and his officers to-day and further discussions with both sides, which will relate to both the shipbuilding and engineering disputes, are due to take place later in the day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving us this statement. We are now in a very difficult situation. I sense in this statement that there is just a little progress in one direction, which is that the Court of Inquiry is to be set up, and that both sides have agreed to co-operate in the use of the Court of Inquiry. That is undoubtedly some progress, and whatever strong feelings some of us may feel about one side or the other, I think we should for the moment be entirely neutral until we can see what further progress is being made. I hope it will be real progress.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to Part II, in paragraph 9: "and flour confectionery." The noble Lord said: The discussion we have had upon Amendments Nos. 104 and 106 have surely paved a way for the noble Lord to accept this Amendment, because I thought he put up an unanswerable argument for the retention of "other sugar confectionery" to run alongside "sweets". Surely, he must accept my Amendment, that running alongside "bread" should be "and flour confectionery", because that is what was in the original Act. Frankly, I cannot see how you can possibly distinguish between bread and other flour confectionery. If you have a loaf of bread plain, I suppose it is bread. If you have a loaf of bread with currants in, what is that? Is it still bread? I suppose so. But if you have a bun with currants in, what is that? I suppose that is "other flour confectionery". How you are to distinguish between bread and other flour confectionery I do not know. I suggest to the noble Lord that he puts in the words, "and other flour confectionery", and then if you want to buy a loaf of bread with or without currants you can, and if
754
you want to buy a bun or a cake you can. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 20, after (" Bread ") insert (" and flour confectionery.").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: To start with, perhaps I should explain what the Gowers Committee thought about this matter. They recommended that the goods which could be sold after 1 o'clock on the early closing day should be limited to those for which there was a genuine and substantial need at the time. They thought that if the list were made at all long, the requirement to observe an early closing day would become unreal and ought to be dropped, in spite of the fact that many trades are very anxious to have a compulsory early closing day. The Committee went even further: they went so far as to recommend that bread should not be allowed to be sold on the early closing day. But in the course of consultations with the trade organisations it was found that that would have the effect of preventing the completion of bakers' rounds. It would be absurd to allow the sale of bread on a round at a time when it could not be sold in the baker's shop. It was decided, therefore, to exempt the sale of bread from the early closing day requirement.
I agree with the noble Lord that there is a good deal to be said for allowing bakers' shops, which are open on the early closing day for the sale of bread, to sell flour confectionery as well. But although flour confectionery does not come under the First Schedule of the Bill, the Bill does make indirect provision for it. I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 11. Under that clause, the Secretary of State can—and I would add "and will"—make regulations specifying refreshments that can be sold by registered shops at any time. Flour confectionery will certainly be considered for inclusion, and the trades concerned will be consulted before the regulations are made.
There is an advantage in providing for flour confectionery in that way, and it is this. It should effectively prevent shops from pretending to be open on the early closing day for the sale of flour confectionery when in fact they sell little or no such goods, and are merely using this as an excuse for evading the early closing day requirements. Registration under

755
Clause 11 will be open only to shops which really do a substantial trade in the specified refreshments after shopping hours. I think the noble Lord will find that Clause 11 contains something which he did not consider in his opening remarks. I believe that, if the Bill is to work, we must reduce these exemptions as much as possible.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: On this question of flour confectionery, as I understand the Minister, he is wishing to refuse the Amendment of the noble Lord because he can do it administratively under Clause 11, and he will do it if he is satisfied that the man is a big man and has a big trade.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: If it is a substantial part of his business.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: What we want to do is to see that the little man has an equal chance.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: "Substantial" applies to the little man as well. It all depends on the business he is doing in relation to the particular article.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The Minister means "substantial" in relation to this Amendment. Is it not better to accept the Amendment rather than get around the position by administratively applying the Amendment in specialised cases? It does not seem to me a wise form of legislation that we should refuse an Amendment in general because we want to apply it administratively in particular. It would be better to have another look and see whether a provision could not be put into the Bill that flour confectionery is allowed, provided it forms a substantial part of the man's business. All through this Bill I and many noble Lords have felt that we want to see as much put in the Bill as possible and as little as possible left to administrative order. This seems to me a case where the Government might think again as to whether they should not redraft this particular clause so as to meet the point of the Minister and, at the same time, be fair to all the various authorities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bal-four of Inchrye. I would hesitate to turn the knife in the wound that the editor
756
of The Times must have made in the side of the Government today, but The Times is quite right—this is making nonsense. What the noble Lord has just said is this: Under the Act you can sell bread, but if you want to sell a loaf of bread with currants in it you have to be registered. Under Clause 11 you can sell other flour confectionery if you are licensed. What as? I do not know: perhaps as a kosher butcher. You have to be licensed. So, if one goes into a shop and wants to buy a loaf of bread with currants in it, one cannot do so because the man has not been licensed to sell bread with currants in it; he has not been licensed to sell a bun or, taking into account the noble Lord's national prejudices, what I think is called a bap. Is that bread, or is it "other flour confectionery"? So if you go to a Scottish baker, you can buy a loaf of bread under the Act, but, unless the baker is licensed to sell baps, you cannot buy a bap.
Then the noble Lord said, "The reason for making all these distinctions is that we want this Act to work." Really! The noble Lord answered his own argument when he answered his noble friend on the Back Bench about "sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery" under this Schedule. Bread, and bread alone, can be bought under this Schedule; other flour confectionery cannot. Will not the noble Lord, if he will not listen to my plea, which perhaps he may find difficult, at least listen to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and have another look at this matter? I do not want to divide the Committee on a question like this, because it is so senseless. Will the noble Lord either accept the Amendment or undertake to redraft quite a number of the provisions in this Schedule which make the Bill really nonsense?
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I hope the Government will have another look at this point. I am in favour of this Bill in principle, and of the early closing of bakeries and other places, within reason, but the important thing when we legislate in this kind of way is to carry public opinion with us in practice; otherwise we bring the law into contempt, and that is a dangerous thing to do. Particularly is it a dangerous thing to do in social legislation which is basically right. That is where one has to be careful not to indulge in all

757
the refinements of the Gowers Committee. What is really the position? The baker is not going to pay the extra cost of keeping open unless there is business for him to do and there is a demand in the locality for him to do it. In that case he is going to be allowed to keep open under the Act, and then, if he goes through all the rigmarole of applying to somebdy for registration, he can register under one of these fancy names which enable him, apparently, provided the quota of his business bears more than the ratio of the number you first thought of, to be licensed to sell a muffin. Is it really sense? You have to carry with you the good will of the people who go into the shop.
Suppose your wife goes into a shop to buy a loaf of bread and then suddenly remembers that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, likes a crumpet to his tea, and there are all the crumpets in the world set out. But, oh no! you can take him back kilogrammes of bread, which he does not want, but you cannot give him a muffin to his tea. It does not make sense. If the shop is going to be shut, let it be shut altogether. If it is going to be open, let it be open for the sale of things that anybody who goes into a baker's can buy, whether it is a loaf of bread, a bap or all the things that ought to make a great appeal to the noble Lord now in charge of this Bill, because he has grown fat on all these cakes. Do let us have a little common sense about it.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am indebted to the noble Earl who has just spoken. The whole object is to stop loopholes. After all, grocers' shops and mixed shops all sell flour confectionery. If you give them the opportunity of remaining open, they sell other things. It is the object of the exercise to stop such loopholes. But, in view of the representations that have been made by both sides of the Committee, I will ask my noble friend to consider the point further.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that, because the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is quite right. Having a life experience of distribution, may I say that if you think that a grocer would keep open the whole of his shop for the sake of evading the law to sell a bit of flour confectionery, you do not give much
758
credit to those hard-headed people in busines who only open shops to make money. I will withdraw the Amendment and leave myself at the mercy of the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to Part II:
"10. Flowers.
11. Fresh, frozen or dried fruit and fresh frozen or dried vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with flowers. I am allowed to sell flowers from a shop on a Sunday because they are perishable, but. I am not allowed to sell flowers from a shop on an early closing day—I suppose, because they are not perishable. That is the only thing I can read into this clause. All I want to put back is what is in the existing Act. I do not mind whether or not on non-opening days one wants flowers or other perishable goods sold such as:
"Fresh, frozen or dried fruit and fresh, frozen or dried vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
You can sell all these things on a Sunday, but, as I interpret this clause, you cannot sell them on an early closing day. You either do no: sell them at all or, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, you shut the shop up. But if they are perishable on one day, surely they are perishable on another. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"Page 54, line 20, at end insert the said words."—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: As the noble Lord said, the Bill makes an alteration in the existing law. The noble Lord would rather retain the existing law. I would point out that fruit and vegetables will be considered for inclusion in the list of refreshments which may be sold on the half-day in shops registered under Clause 11. I must tell your Lordships that the Bill follows the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. They considered that if the sale of flowers, fruit and vegetables were excepted, there would be a large loophole in connection with half-day closing, as these goods are sold in grocers' shops and also in mixed shops. They pointed out that one of the main arguments for the original exemption of fresh fruit and vegetables was that they were perishable. That

759
argument no longer helps, for in these days we have refrigerators and supplies are much more easily obtained than they used to be. The Government consider that the considerations which the Gowers Committee put forward are important, but I will take note of what the noble Lord has said and of the arguments he has put forward.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As is now emerging, and as has emerged right through the debate in Committee upon this Bill, much as we agree with the general principle of the Gowers Committee in trying to do away with abuses, that Committee has cut right through every sensible thing when it comes to trading. To bring in a little sentiment, may I put this situation to the noble Lord. Here you are stopping a florist, with his shop situated outside a cemetery, from selling flowers. But the barrow boy or the stall-holder who has a few bunches of flowers outside the cemetery gates can compete with the legitimate shopkeeper. I am sure the noble Lord does not want that. If the noble Lord wants to prevent the sale of flowers on Sundays, or on half-days, let him make one clean sweep and have no exemptions at all. The noble Lord has tried to get the best of both worlds but has fallen between the two. However, I think he sees the force of the argument, and upon this Amendment as upon the last I am quite prepared to leave myself in his hands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
SECOND SCHEDULE
TRANSACTIONS PERMISSIBLE IN GREAT BRITAIN AT ANY TIME ON WEEKDAYS AND IN ENGLAND AND WALES AT ANY TIME ON SUNDAYS
1. The sale—

(a) at any premises for consumption thereat;

(b) in a vessel, railway train, omnibus or aircraft, for consumption therein;

of meals (including tobacco supplied therewith for immediate consumption) or refreshments, mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery or ice-cream (with or without wafers or edible containers).
5. The sale or supply of drugs, medicines, medical or surgical appliances or spectacles or eyeglasses.
7. The sale of reading matter or stationery at such book-stalls as may for the time being be approved for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State, being book-stalls appearing to him to be intended for the use of, and substantially used by, long-distance travellers.
8. The sale, at a theatre to a member of the audience at a performance, of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice-cream (with or without wafers or edible containers), tobacco or matches, so long as the sale is effected in a part of the theatre to which no members of the public other than members of the audience have access.
4.2 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: This Amendment is moved in the interests of clarity. The word "omnibus" is quite vague, and in all legislation dealing with public transport the term used is "public service vehicle", the definition of which is well known to many noble Lords who have taken such an active part in transport Bills in this House. The word "omnibus" certainly covers a stage carriage; it may cover an express carriage, and it may (although it is by no means certain) cover a contract carriage. There are other public service vehicles, such as trolley buses, tramcars, and motor coaches, and it seems to me that the words "public service vehicle" would be far more suitably used in this place in the Bill because their meaning is quite certain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 26, leave out (" omnibus ") and insert (" a public service vehicle ").—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule makes provision for the sale of meals or refreshments on coaches, trains, omnibuses or aircraft, and it also provides for the sale of meals or refreshments at railway and omnibus stations or airports for consumption on trains, omnibuses or aircraft, as the case may be. The effect of accepting this Amendment and the next would be to allow sales on all public service vehicles instead of on omnibuses only—that is, on trams and trolley buses. It seems to me that here we are arriving at the somewhat extraordinary situation that we have sales at an omnibus station and goods sold for consumption on a tramway car or a trolley bus. Apart from that, it is

761
difficult to believe that the sale of meals or refreshments will ever take place on trams or trolley buses, which as I have already said, seem to be the only kinds of public service vehicles other than the omnibus. I should point out to the noble Lord, that this paragraph is largely a repetition of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Shops Act, 1950, with an extension to omnibuses and omnibus stations, which seems to me all that is necessary. I really do not see the sense in extending the provision to other public service vehicles. The whole object of the exercise is to provide people on long-distance transport with an opportunity for having a meal on the way. To include all public service vehicles, which, as I have said, brings in the trolley bus and the tramway car, seems to be a little ridiculous.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Does the noble Lord really mean that if I buy a bun at an omnibus station and then eat it in an omnibus I shall be not guilty of any offence; but that if I eat that bun on a trolley bus I shall be guilty of a criminal offence? Is this not really getting beyond a Civil Service joke?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Is the noble Earl really considering where he can get the bun that he is going to eat? He must go to the omnibus station to get it. I honestly do not see the noble Earl going to the omnibus station, which deals with long-distance transport, buying his bun, and going on to the trolley bus thereafter to eat it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: The noble Lord is quite wrong. I am more familiar than he is in regard to the way in which public service vehicles manoeuvre themselves about. I have not an official motor car in which to travel about the metropolis, and I can assure him that there are places—Victoria, for instance, from which I take my modest bus home from the House—where buses and public service vehicles of all kinds stop for short and long distance travel. I am perfectly serious about this matter. I took an extreme incident, but it is not a foolish incident to take. What is important is that we should not write nonsense into an Act of Parliament which will have to be construed strictly. I quite seriously put this point to the noble Lord: if, at an omnibus station from which omnibuses and trolley buses and any other kind of
762
vehicle starts—and there are quite a number of such stations—I buy a bun, is it really true that it is a criminal offence to eat it in one kind of vehicle but perfectly legitimate to eat it in another? It may be that the language is wrong; it may need some recasting.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: For information, may I ask the noble Lord this question? If I buy another bun at the omnibus station and then decide that I will not go by omnibus but will get a taxi, am I right in thinking that I cannot eat it in a taxi because the taxi is a public service vehicle?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am advised by the noble and learned Viscount that a taxi is not a public service vehicle, but the noble Lord may be correct. The whole object here is to provide food at stations from which buses or trains or aircraft leave on long-distance journeys. If, of course, you really want to go to the station and buy a bun, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, desires, there is nothing to stop you doing so. But why you should do that so as to have the pleasure of eating it on a trolley bus, I do not know. The whole object of this exercise is simply to see that people who are going on long journeys can get something to eat on those journeys; and the trolley bus and tramway car do not really come into the matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have been most interested and highly amused by the contributions which have been so cleverly made by your Lordships. But the real fact about this Amendment is in connection with the sale on a Sunday in a vessel or in a railway train or an omnibus of these particular viands. So I think that a good deal of the debate which has taken place to-day has been rather irrelevant to the actual context and to the Amendment. It seemed to me that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment wants to make any public service vehicle a place in which the sale of these items may take place on a Sunday. That is how I read his Amendment and paragraph 1 (b) of the Second Schedule. I do not want to harrass the Minister in any way, or to discuss the wide views which have been expressed on both sides of the Chamber. All I will say is that there are considerable sections of our

763
population who already object strongly to the original form of the Statute in this respect. A lot of people object to the fact that on the Sabbath Day an omnibus can be hired, and that in the omnibus there may be a tremendous sale of things that are needed for what are called "bottle parties". I think we might do much better work, from the point of view of ensuring the proper keeping of the Sabbath, if we addressed our attention to such matters as that and did not address ourselves too assiduously to the point raised here.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I wonder if the Minister can tell me this. In the course of his remarks he used the word "coach". Does the word "omnibus" cover the long-distance coach?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Yes.
LORD GIFFORD: Lord Balfour of Inchrye has largely clarified my point. I should like to ask if the word "omnibus" does really include "stage carriage", "express carriage" and "contract carriage". I should be very happy to withdraw my Amendment on an assurance that the term "omnibus" does include all those three types of vehicles.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should be very doubtful about defining those terms offhand. If the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his Amendment, on my undertaking to consider the exact meaning of the term "omnibus," I should be very happy to give that undertaking. Unfortunately, I have not brought Stroud's Judicial Dictionary with me, and I am doubtful whether I am qualified to decide the legal meaning of the terms in question. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept an undertaking that I will consider the point, rather than an express assurance as to whether the term "omnibus" covers all the carriages he mentioned.
LORD GIFFORD: After this interesting debate, in which we have had reference to trolley buses and tram cars, and all the rest, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment on the assurance which the noble Viscount has just given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.14 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to paragraph 1:
"(2) The sale at any premises at which the business carried on, or to be carried on includes the sale of meals or refreshments for consumption both on and off the premises, of all foods for consumption elsewhere than on the premises, except those—

(a) which cannot be immediately consumed without cooking; or

(b) sold in sealed containers of metal or glass or metal and glass,

but including those which—

(a) can be consumed immediately when merely heated up or toasted; or

(b) are sold in sealed containers of metal or glass or metal and glass where the contents of the containers do not exceed 4 ozs. in net weight and which can be immediately consumed without cooking or when merely heated up or toasted.

Where meals and refreshments are sold for consumption on the premises in one part of the shop and for consumption elsewhere than on the premises in another part of the shop the two parts of the shop shall be deemed to be the same premises."
The noble Lord said: This is a rather serious attempt to meet what I think is a modern need, and I hope that the Minister will listen sympathetically. The object of the Amendment is to facilitate the sale of partly cooked meals. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is going to make his exit now, may I congratulate him on the way he has weathered the storm and tell him that I am very grateful. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will listen sympathetically to what I have to say. There is a growing demand, especially on the part of those who have to work in offices during the day, for facilities to collect their evening meal partly cooked, with a view to completing the cooking of it or warming it up when they get home. I expect that perhaps even the noble Viscount has suffered, like so many of us, from shortage of domestic staff and has experienced the difficulty which one sometimes has in entertaining one's friends in the evening as a result. By buying partly cooked meals that can be quickly hotted up, one is able largely to overcome that difficulty.
In this connection, the Bill, as drafted, is very loose. This procedure was allowed under the earlier Act. I think the noble Viscount will agree that whatever was wanted years ago is wanted to-day. This is undoubtedly a great convenience to the public. I do not think I need elaborate

765
my argument to your Lordships. Most of you, I am sure, find yourselves up against this problem at times—the problem of spending one's time at work during the day and then getting a decent meal not only for one's self but perhaps for a few friends in the evening. The opportunity of buying these partly cooked meals in containers on the way home is undoubtedly of great advantage to many people. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 37, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord has invited me to listen to this with sympathy, and I certainly do so, so far as the purpose of the Amendment is concerned. I had not realised, on reading the Amendment, that it was intended to deal with partly cooked meals only. I thought, and I still think, that the words of the Amendment can be more widely construed. The policy of the Bill—which I think is right—is that the sale of refreshments from restaurants or cafes should be dealt with (as they would be, apart from the Amendment) under Clause 11, which gives the chance of greater flexibility of definition than would be possible if the exemption were dealt with under the Schedule. I entirely sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment, but I am advised that the purpose can be carried out under Clause 11 and that it would be better carried out under Clause 11. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider that and whether, in the circumstances, he desires to press the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The difficulty is that under Clause 11 it has to be done by regulation. The trouble under the old Act was that the Home Office, or whoever had the drafting of regulations, found great difficulty in making the appropriate regulations. So it was thought that it would be better to have here a definition of what is meant by a partly cooked meal. This is an attempt to do it. Those who are in this business—as distinct from the theoretical draftsmen—have thought it better that this should be put down in the Schedule to enable exemption to be made; and I agree with them. We think it is better to do it this way than leaving it for a lot of regulations that may or may not come
766
before Parliament at some future time. I think your Lordships will agree that it is better to have these definitions written into the Bill.
The noble Lord who had charge of the Bill earlier raised his self-same argument with regard to the term "sugar confectionery", which embraced many things. It is not my purpose here to embrace anything but a partly cooked meal. If the noble Viscount will glance down the Amendment he will see the expert's definition of a partly cooked meal. I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to press upon the noble Lord this point: do not let us leave this matter subject to the same kind of slipshod definition that has been the bugbear of this sort of legislation in the past. If the noble Viscount can give me an assurance on that point, I will willingly withdraw the Amendment. I am happy to think that he is seized with the principle that these pre-cooked or partly-cooked meals should be available to people who cannot afford to go into expensive restaurants or have expensive staffs in their homes.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My own feeling, if I may be frank with the noble Lord, is that he is creating additional anomalies by this Amendment. Take a tin of peas or, to be more elaborate, a tin of spaghetti. Is that a partly-cooked meal?—for it only needs heating up, so far as I know, to become eatable. If it is, there is this difficulty: that the ordinary shop which sells refreshments can register under Clause 11, but if it happens to be a restaurant, it does not need to be registered. When two classes of shop are selling an identical article, why should one class require registration and the other not? When we take the question of what a tin contains, while some tins contain food which requires little more than heating up, there are others that require to be mixed with additional ingredients, and so on.
In general, I would accept the noble Lord's proposition that we ought to create law by Act of Parliament and not by regulation, but the difficulty that has arisen in connection with this is such as to make regulations exactly the desirable instrument to do it, if it is to be done, because we can change a regulation if it proves to give rise to anomalies. But your Lordships know only too well what

767
pain and suffering one has to undergo in order to change an Act of Parliament. I can see this Amendment, or any Amendment of this kind, which exempts restaurants from the ordinary provisions of registration in respect of meals consumed off the premises, giving rise to many more anomalies than the Bill does in its present form. The solution offered by the Bill is to define the word "refreshments" in a series of flexible regulations under Clause 11, which will make it possible to proceed in matters which are not of very great principle, or worthy of the constant day-to-day attention of Parliament, by way of trial and error—I hope more often by trial than by error. I should have thought that, on the whole, the solution offered by the Bill was preferable to that which the noble Lord offers, and it would achieve the same result with a good deal less general suffering. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment. If he will allow me to say so, I agree with the spirit in which he moved it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not pressing this Amendment. I am going to leave myself in the hands of the noble Viscount, I hope as securely as I left myself in the hands of his predecessor. But will the noble Viscount tell me this? What is the real object of registration? I can see his point. I can buy a tin of beans from a restaurant that sells partly-cooked foods, which I suppose will be granted a licence to sell partly-cooked foods. I sense that what the noble Viscount wants is to stop the ordinary grocer, who is not a restaurateur and who sells tins of baked beans, from being registered, because there will be the temptation for a person who goes into a shop to buy this partly-cooked food to buy things that it would be wrong for him to buy. Is that the object of registration?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I can assist the noble Lord there. We have a great difficulty under the present law in dealing with the sale of refreshments, and the provisions of Clause 11, which we have passed, represent an attempt to solve the problem that will not be unduly retrictive but, at the same time, will avoid bringing the law into (I am almost inclined to say) the contempt into which it has been brought at the present moment. The provision requiring shops to register
768
under Clause 11 with the local authority for the sale of refreshments for off-consumption is to enable the local authority to have some check on the shops that are entitled to sell refreshments, and, in particular, to ensure that the sale of refreshments is not used as a mere excuse to keep open for the sale of goods which cannot be legally sold at the time.
We do not think that in the ordinary course these considerations apply to restaurants and cafes, which may be legally open at any time for the sale of meals and refreshments for consumption on the premises. There are, however, plenty of border-line cases whose main trade is the sale of refreshments for off-consumption but who, if the Amendment were accepted, could carry on such trade without registration, on the pretext that to some extent, at any rate, they sold meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises. The local authority have no power to refuse registration on any ground other than that a substantial trade in these refreshments is not carried on at the time of registration; and if they do refuse, as the noble Lord will remember, there is provision for appeal to the courts. So I do not think that we are imposing a heavy burden on restaurants.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On the noble Viscount's undertaking to look at this question and consider the whole matter, I willingly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to paragraph 1:
"(2) The sale by occupiers of premises, whose business is wholly or mainly in connection with the sale of meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises, of meals or refreshments for consumption off the premises."
The noble Lord said: This is not quite the same point. I should like to cite a case which will illustrate what I have in mind. If I am staying in an hotel and want to go out in my car with my wife for a picnic in the afternoon, and that afternoon happens to be half-closing day in that town, under the Bill the hotel cannot put together a tea-basket for me, or, if they do, I must sit in the grounds of the hotel and consume its contents. I cannot take a tea-basket out of that

769
hotel at any time while the shops in that town are not legally authorised to be open. If I am staying in an hotel and have a long train journey ahead, I cannot ask them to cut a packet of sandwiches for me to put in my pocket and consume on the train, because they cannot cut sandwiches for me to take out of the hotel at any hour past the closing time laid down in the Bill. I feel sure that the noble Viscount does not agree with that state of affairs.
I grant him his point about registration of multiple shops that can sell meals for consumption on and off, but I am now talking of an establishment
"whose business is wholly or mainly in connection with the sale of meals or refreshments…".
an establishment which is purely and simply an hotel—I put in "mainly" because the noble Viscount might want to argue that the principal business of some hotels is the letting of rooms and that supplying meals is not the principal business. I am not wedded to this wording, but does it not seem ridiculous that I cannot take a tea-basket out of an hotel at which I am staying for a picnic at any time which happens to be after the early closing hour for shops in that particular town? The noble and learned Viscount may say that the hotel can be registered by the local authority; but why should it be necessary for an hotel to be registered for the purpose of carrying on the business of an hotel? It does not do anything else. Surely, if I stay in an hotel I should be able to have all the amenities which that hotel can rightly provide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 37, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am trying to get the reference verified but I am told that the noble Lord is mistaken as to the effect of the Bill as drafted and that it is possible to do as he wishes, although Clause 11 would have to be invoked in order to do it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That means registration.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes. Fundamentally one is faced with the fact that the object of the Bill is to restrict the hours during which shops can be open. If a shop, restaurant, hotel or any place
770
within the extended definition wishes to sell refreshments for off-consumption it can do so, but it must tell the local authority so that the local authority may check whether this is a genuine business or a purely casual business. Subject to that one provision, the hotel or other concern may supply refreshments in that way, without let or hindrance. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is probably taking too gloomy a view of his chances with the refreshment basket and the sandwiches. My own difficulty has always been to get hotels or railway refreshment rooms to cut sandwiches at all except during the hours when they are open, and I believe the noble Lord will find that if he walks into a railway restaurant which is open he can buy his sandwiches and take them away in his pocket as he has always done hitherto, even without any registration of that restaurant under Clause 11. It may not be open during some part of the day, but the Amendment of the noble Lord will not help it to open; it will only enable him to be served when the place is open. Therefore, I do not feel that his difficulty is a very real one. In so far as it is a real one, it can be dealt with under Clause 11, by registration.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Does this mean that any hotel whose business is wholly or mainly in connection with the sale of meals could not give a picnic basket for a Sunday supper out in the country unless the hotel had actually registered under Clause 11? If so, it seems to me that we are inciting the breaking of the law. Surely it would be much better not to rely on registration under Clause 11 but to insert in the main Bill some provision which would allow the very reasonable facilities for which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asks. Perhaps the Minister would look at this matter again to see whether some such provision could not be inserted in the Bill, rather than rely on the need for registralion with all the rigmarole which would have to be fulfilled by the applicant if, for some reason or other, the local authority refused the application for registration. It all seems rather complicated and is something of a temptation for someone to ignore the necessity for registration.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I see the point which is made by the noble

771
and learned Viscount, but I fear that for the sake of stopping up a few loopholes we are going to shackle the legitimate trader. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount has any experience of the hotel business, but I can assure him that the volume of rules, regulations and form-filling with which an hotelier has to cope at the present time is fairly large. Why now ask him to register in order to carry on his perfectly legitimate business? If the noble and learned Viscount does not like the wording of my Amendment he may alter it. I do not mind the introduction of words to make it apply to bona fide hotels and restaurants. That would go at least some way towards my point. I am not speaking of railway station restaurants but of the kind of country hotel at which one would stay on holiday or at a week-end, where one may ask on a Sunday to have a luncheon basket. Unless the hotel is registered to give luncheon baskets or tea baskets it cannot do so outside the early closing hours regulated in that particular area under this Bill. Would the noble and learned Viscount, when he is considering this matter, see whether he can be more specific? I agree that any loophole should be stopped up, but we do not want to set up a huge machine of registration to stop what may be a very slight breaking of the law by small people. If the Minister can minimise that by specifying in this particular context bona fide hotels and restaurants, then I should be quite satisfied.
LORD GIFFORD: May I make a suggestion which may help the noble and learned Viscount without going as far as is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth? Could there not be some provision for this facility to be made available to bona fide residents of an hotel? I appreciate that somebody may come into the hotel for the particular purpose of buying sandwiches or other refreshments, but it seems ridiculous that residents of an hotel should not be able to buy a picnic meal if they wish.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Let us define the point at issue. The point is not whether they should be allowed to or not, for, so far as I know, we are all agreed that they should be allowed to obtain such refreshments. The question is simply one of administration, as to
772
whether or not a restaurant which contemplates, in the ordinary course of its business, the sale of comestibles for consumption off the premises should take the precaution of registering under Clause 11. I would point out to my noble friend below the gangway that there is no rigmarole here. The local authority has only one reason upon which it can refuse registration; that is, that no substantial business of the kind is being carried on at all. It can refuse only for that reason; therefore the hotel has an absolute right to supply comestibles at any time it wishes to do so; and it will do so only if it has an employee to serve them. The only question, therefore, is whether one registers or does not register. The present view of those advising me is that to omit the necessity for registration probably would lead the way to abuse, while to insert an Amendment of this kind would invite the anomalies of the kind that I have pointed out. For instance, in the poignant example given by the noble Lord of the sale of meals at the country inn at which he was staying, I very much doubt whether the business of a residential hotel is wholly or mainly connected with the sale of meals. I should question whether he could substantiate that. Therefore, he would have to search for some other form of words in order to achieve his purpose.
I will certainly cause this matter to be looked at again. The last thing I have ever tried to be in connection with this Bill is dogmatic. I am sure that those advising me and advising my right honourable friend will take this debate into account and think of it without any preconceptions before the Report stage. But my own present feeling is that probably the noble Lord is worrying too much about this matter. I agree that the burden of regulations on hoteliers and restaurateurs is very high at the moment, but it is mainly high in relation to the licensed victualling trade, and so long as we retain our present licensing laws it is inevitable that that will be highly regulated, quite independently of anything we do here. The process of registration under Clause 11 is one that will have to be undertaken by other people, and I am not sure that hotels and restaurants should be put in a privileged position. However, as I say, I

773
do not wish to appear dogmatic at this stage or to say that we will not think about it. We certainly will.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The Minister took me to task about "rigmarole", and perhaps that was no quite the correct word to use. However, I would remind him that registration is not so simple. The hotel has to make an application to the local authority, who then have to satisfy themselves
"that it is the applicant's intention that the business carried on or, as the case may be, to be carried on…"
Presumably, the applicant will have to furnish various information, including figures, possibly of his complete turnover or of that portion, which relates to this point. The Minister knows well, because he has had to deal with local authorities, that it is not so easy as saying "You make an application"; indeed, you have to go through—and I repeat—a consider-able rigmarole.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think my noble friend is probably mistaking what is a complicated form of words for what is a relatively simple form of action.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps it is the Bill that is a rigmarole. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and, on his undertaking, I will, of course, withdraw the Amendment. I hope he will not think it unkind of me if I remind him that it was once part of the Ark of the Covenant of the Party opposite to "Set the people free."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord is inviting me to withdraw the Bill altogether, which I do not think would please his noble friend sitting to his right. Perhaps he should change places.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not inviting the noble and learned Viscount to do anything at all except to cogitate on some of the things that have been said in the past.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL: Under existing law, off-licence holders are subject to the same selling hours for alcoholic liquor as public houses, and both are allowed to sell tobacco, cigarettes and matches until the close of permitted hours in the evening. This Bill takes away the right from the off-licence holders to sell tobacco and puts them on a par with ordinary tobacconists.
774
So we have the situation where one could go out to an off-licence shop to buy a bottle of beer, and after 7 p.m., although one could buy the bottle of beer, one could not buy a packet of cigarettes and some matches at the same time. On the other hand, cafes, restaurants and cinemas can sell tobacco throughout the evening for what is described as "immediate consumption with a meal". I must say that the idea that somebody may consume twenty cigarettes with a meal is engaging, but, strictly speaking, to keep on the right side of the law, that is what he would have to do. During the past fifty years all new and rebuilt public houses have had separate off-licence shops, so that one on licence covers both the public house and the off-licence shop. These can sell cigarettes and matches all the hours they are open, but the off-licence shop on its own cannot. This seems to me to be extremely unfair, as the result will be that increased trade is bound to go to the premises attaching to the public house, to the detriment of identical premises not covered by a public house licence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 2, leave out (" on-licence ") and insert (" licence ").—(Lord Jessel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it has escaped the attention of my noble friend that on February 12 last I promised to make an exemption for the sale of tobacco and confectionery. I personally do not see what the purpose of this Amendment is if, in fact, that exemption is made. I would ask him to reconsider the muter, because if you are allowed to sell tobacco anywhere. I do not see the purpose of inserting a provision that you can sell it at an off-licence.
LORD JESSEL: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I agree that if what he said he might do is in fact done, there is not much point in this Amendment On the other hand, suppose it is not done. I still think that off-licence premises should maintain their present position by having the same rights to sell tobacco as they have at present. However, in the circumstances, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved to leave out paragraph 5. The noble Viscount said: I

775
move this Amendment because it is a fact that, although in considering another part of the Bill we have discussed certain other aspects of pharmacies and pharmaceutical practices on Sundays, there is still a strong objection in the profession with regard to this particular provision. The two lines that I desire to be deleted from the Bill in themselves remove the limitation on the supply of medicines on Sundays now permitted only from pharmacies and shops contracting under the National Health Service. In the view of the profession, at any rate—and I speak now from information supplied to me from the Pharmaceutical Society and the National Pharmaceutical Union—this would be a retrograde step and contrary to the view expressed by the Ministry of Health to the Gowers Committee. It would establish a privilege which is not based upon any special knowledge possessed by the persons concerned, or upon any special service that such persons can give.
The existing law, providing for an article to be supplied if there is reason to believe that it is required in the case of illness, gives all the latitude which the public may require. The Pharmaceutical Society, as well as the National Pharmaceutical Union, take that point of view. It is certainly an extension of the general use on Sundays of pharmacies and chemist shops, and in certain cases other shops, which ought not to be allowed to remain as it is now in the Schedule. I am very much in favour—as I am sure all Members of the Committee are—of making adequate provision for a supply of drugs and medicines prescribed, or which are regular lines, for illness. But when it comes to opening the door to all kinds of apparatus such as spectacles and surgical appliances, one might say that in what is called medical apparatus every kind of prophylactic might be included. It is not progress to extend the powers at present existing for these businesses on Sundays so as to permit that kind of thing. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will give special attention to this Amendment. I am not saying that on Report stage some words may not have to be inserted to make it quite clear what is limited, if the noble Viscount should, with his advisers, think that the existing law would not otherwise be maintained. I have not actually looked up that point,
776
because I am not a lawyer. But perhaps the noble Viscount would look at this again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 3, leave out paragraph 5.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is an endeavour to restrict liberty, for various reasons which I will analyse, and I hope that, for that reason, the Amendment will not commend itself either to the Committee or to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has tactfully absented himself whilst this particular Amendment was being moved by his noble friend. The effect of the Amendment is to remove the exemption from the sale of drugs, medicines, medical or surgical appliances, or spectacles or eyeglasses from the Schedule of the Bill, which permits certain transactions at any time on week-days and, in England and Wales, at any time on Sundays. Paragraph 19, it is perfectly true, provides exemptions in respect of goods which the person effecting sale has reasonable grounds to believe are required in a case of illness. That was not designed in practice to deal with medicines at all. The object of paragraph 19 was to allow transactions of ordinary articles which might be required in cases of emergency, and it was thought right to exempt them. In general, it is the desire of the Government to exempt drugs, medicines, medical or surgical appliances, or spectacles or eyeglasses, without putting it upon the seller of them to find out if someone is genuinely ill at the time they are bought. On the whole, that is the view which I commend to your Lordships.
It is, of course, true that a number of powerful bodies of organised opinions, and, may I add, highly reputable bodies, take a contrary view. The National Pharmaceutical Union, the Co-operative Union, and other organisations representing pharmacists, take the contrary view. I think one can speculate as to why. My own feeling is that they are possibly influenced by the belief that shops legislation should be used to limit the sale of such articles except by persons enjoying special qualifications. But that is not the Government's view. In our view, the Shops Bill is not the proper instrument to achieve this purpose, if it is desirable to achieve it. There are plenty of people who think it is desirable,

777
but it is no part of the function of this Bill—which is a Bill for limitation of hours and the protection of assistants—to cure any of the various evils which may arise from the sale by unqualified persons of spectacles, eyeglasses or drugs.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt? I am not at all clear. The noble Viscount is no doubt expressing a legal view as to what he thinks the Government intend. But the law at the present time is that these goods may not be sold in a pharmacy or a chemist's shop unless that shop—I do not say is staffed entirely by professional people, but, at any rate, is under the management of one who is qualified. As I listened to the noble Viscount, it did not seem to me that he was providing for that view. If we are to have goods of this sort sold in general, then there should be a qualified chemist in charge.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was aware of the need for a qualified chemist in certain circumstances, but I do not think that applies to the sale of a packet of aspirins in every case. I think we discussed that point at some length under Clause 41. I was saying only that if that were, as I suspect it is, the underlying motive of the very reputable bodies whose view the noble Viscount so well represents, it is not the Government's view that that objective ought to be obtained by the device of using the shops legislation for obtaining it, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that comment.
The present situation is that under the Fifth Schedule to the 1950 Act, which lists transactions exempted on Sundays, sales are limited to chemists, opticians and other qualified persons. But what the noble Viscount did not point out was that the Second Schedule of the same Act allows sales after the week-day evening closing hour by any shop so long as the shop is open only long enough to serve each customer; and the First Schedule exempts such sales by any shop from the early closing day provisions. Exemption in cases of illness is additional. Clearly, something ought to be done about this extraordinary example of muddle and anomalies under the existing law—having one for Sundays, one for the late closing hour and one for the early closing hour. Something must be done to rationalise the whole jungle.
778
Of course, it would be possible to exempt sales at chemists' shops and opticians' shops and not to exempt any other sales. But we do not think that that would do either, because we think it would be absurd to prevent other shops which were lawfully open on Sunday, and which stocked made-up medicines, from selling a box of aspirin to a customer who might think he urgently needed it, unless he could persuade a totally unqualified owner of the shop that he was really ill. If he could not be served, he might have to wait until the evening and then walk miles to the nearest chemist's shop whose turn it would be under the rota scheme. That seems to me to be what my noble friend below the gangway would call a rigmarole, and in this instance I think he would be right.
Apart from paragraph 19, which I have said was not designed for this type of business at all, the National Health Service rota scheme for pharmacists would not be able to operate on the early closing day and on Sundays at all if this Amendment were passed. Shops which stocked such made-up medicines as aspirin would not be able to sell them outside normal shopping hours, even though the shops were normally open for the sale of exempted goods. I do not think the noble Viscount opposite really wishes to destroy the rota scheme as this Amendment would do. On the contrary, the purpose of his Amendments to Clause 41 was to make the rota scheme effective, and his claim was that Clause 41 endangered it. This, however, would make the rota scheme a thing of the past, except under paragraph 19; and anybody who operated it would do so entirely at his peril, because in each case he would have to make quite certain that there was a genuine case of illness. My own feeling is that this is an unduly restrictive Amendment. The law is being tidied and rationalised by the inclusion of paragraph 5, and it would be a mistake to exclude it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am sorry that the noble Viscount has not quite met the spirit in which I moved this Amendment. I told him that I thought it might well be that, if we could exclude these words at the present time, we should need to have something put in their place. Of course, I want to maintain the rota system, as

779
the noble Viscount knows full well. But what I was astonished at in the course of his reply was that he should come down flat in favour of allowing any kind of shop to open on Sunday to sell such things as aspirin. That is a retrograde step; it is retrograde in the view of the professional bodies that I have already mentioned. There is no indication in the noble Viscount's remarks—because, of course, he cannot cover everything—of the type of shop which is going to sell not only aspirin but other classes of goods of a medical nature under this clause. There has been no real difficulty at all, with the help of the rota scheme, in fulfilling all that was required in the last few years by selling through the chemists' shops, either as separate shops or by the rota system, in some cases. In my view, this opening up of Sunday trade, and especially Sunday trade to shops of this character, which are at present not able to deal in these goods, is a grave and retrograde step. I shall certainly return to the matter if the noble Viscount is going to persist in saying "I cannot give any further consideration to it."
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The Leader of the Opposition characterises this as a retrograde step opposed by professional bodies. He has, quite rightly, put forward his point of view, but there is another point of view. At the beginning of his remarks, he said "the organised professional bodies". There is the bigger body of persons, unorganised—the general public. I believe that this is a liberalising of the facilities given, and rightly given, to the general public, and therefore I warmly support the words the Minister used in resisting this Amendment. I hope that he maintains his position.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must correct what the noble Viscount opposite said. I never said that I thought it desirable that shops should open on Sundays in order to sell these things. I said it was ridiculous that a shop which was open on Sunday lawfully for the sale of other things should not be allowed to sell a bottle of aspirin.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And what else? Aspirins are certainly not the only things which
780
can be sold under this paragraph of the Schedule which I want to leave out. The noble Viscount knows that quite well. Some of the things are not, in fact, very respectable.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I know nothing about them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.4 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in paragraph 7, to leave out "such book-stalls" and to insert:
"book-stalls at railway stations, omnibus stations or airports, and such other bookstalls ".
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I spoke about this Amendment and the one immediately following at the same time. Both these Amendments have the same object, but they achieve it in a slightly different way. In the Shops Act, 1950, the exemptions for book-stalls were confined to main line or terminal railway stations or omnibus stations, and the wording in the present Bill was, I understand, designed to extend those exemptions a certain amount so as to cover book-stalls which might not be actually in the station but were in the immediate vicinity and mainly serving the travelling public.
In the furtherance of this laudable object, an uncertainty has crept in. I should like to ask what is the definition of a long-distance traveller. Many of us travel each day to London from places like Maidstone, Orpington, Esher or Woking. Would such travellers be long-distance travellers? I do not know. Therefore, I have put forward an Amendment which will divide the two classes of bookstalls. Those actually in the railway stations, omnibus stations or airports would, by my first Amendment, be exempt from receiving the approval of the Secretary of State, and the long-distance criterion would come in only for those outside the bus stations or airports. The second Amendment provides that all the bookstalls must be approved by the Secretary of State, but the long-distance qualification comes in only for those which are outside the station premises. Obviously, they must be looked at much more carefully, and it would be quite proper that they should be approved only if they really did cater

781
mainly for long-distance travellers. It seems to me that bookstalls actually in the railway stations and airports ought to be almost automatically approved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, leave out (" such bookstalls ") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Gifford.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think one could welcome the spirit underlying this Amendment, but I rather question whether it would not be more complicated than what is at present proposed. Under the existing law, there are exemptions for the sale of reading matter at such terminal and main line stations as may be approved by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 7 of the Schedule, which is the paragraph under consideration in this Amendment, is intended to carry out the same objective, but in rather a more effective manner, by giving the Secretary of State powers to approve exempted bookstalls which appear to him
"to be intended for the use of, and substantially used by, long-distance travellers."
Under the present law, some difficulty has been experienced owing to there being a doubt whether a particular bookstall is in the station or not. That difficulty is dealt with. The Secretary of State is able to exempt bookstalls which are not so qualified. The effect of the Amendment is that bookstalls at all railway stations, omnibus stations and airports are technically exempted, To say that the Secretary of State's power would be confined to adding to the exemptions bookstalls such as those around, but not actually in, the stations would continue the present doubt as to whether a particular bookstall was automatically exempted or not, for the sake of obtaining a purely illusory advantage.
On the other hand, it would suffer, as it seems to me, from an absolutely conclusive disadvantage, because, if we are going to regulate these openings at all, we must hold the balance fairly as between trade competitors. That is obviously an elementary necessity of regulation. There can be no reason at all why, apart from the provision of reading matter for long-distance travel, a bookstall should have an advantage simply because it is in a station. If that were so, it would give a premium to the
782
occupier of a bookstall in the railway station against his competitor in the neighbouring street. If he is supplying reading matter for the traveller, I agree that there is a specific reason why he should be given privileges; but if he is simply in competition with the bookstall in the neighbouring street, I should have thought that there was no case for privilege. That is why the privilege is given by regulation under paragraph 7, and the qualification is that sales must appear to the Secretary of State
"to be intended for the use of, and substantially used by, long-distance travellers."
In practice, I do not think that any difficulty will be occasioned in interpreting those words. I should resist adding to them for the reason that I have given—namely, that it would give an unfair privilege to a number of people who were not really entitled to it.
LORD GIFFORD: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GIFFORD: I have already spoken generally on this Amendment. I felt that the noble Viscount might have some difficulty about my first Amendment, but it seems to me that this one provides adequate safeguards in that all bookstalls have to be approved by the Secretary of State but he does not have to consider the long-distance qualification when the bookstall is actually in the railway station, omnibus station or airport. I agree that there would not be many cases of doubt, but long-distance travel is a new provision. Under the old Act that proviso did not exist, and it seems to me that, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, it ought not to exist under this Bill if the bookstall is in the station. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 13, after (" being ") insert (" either book-stalls at railway stations, omnibus stations or airports or other ").—(Lord Gifford.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With respect, I should have thought this Amendment was open rather nakedly to the same objection that I was indicating before. I can see that there is a case which might be argued by the protagonists of liberty—who are, I am glad to say, numerous in your Lordships' House—that all bookstalls ought to be open on Sunday for

783
the sale of reading matter to anybody. That is not the view taken by the Government, but it seems to me that there is a perfectly strong libertarian case to be put for that. Equally, I can see that there is a strong case for the Government saying "No; that would infringe the rights of the shop assistants, and so on. We must have the exemption limited to long-distance travellers." But what I cannot see that there can be a case for is for giving a privilege to railway station bookstalls where the books are not required for long-distance travel. That is the sole object of this Amendment, and I myself cannot see that there is a case to support it.
LORD GIFFORD: In view of the remarks made by the noble Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.14 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I, with the permission of the Committee, discuss Amendments Nos. 112 and 114 together as they run together? By Amendment No. 114 I seek to leave out of paragraph 8 the words
"so long as the sale is effected in a part of the theatre to which no members of the public other than members of the audience have access."
I seek to safeguard the position by inserting earlier in the paragraph the words "bona-fide". The paragraph would then read:
"The sale, at a theatre to a bona-fide member of the audience at a performance, of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice cream…tobacco or matches."
I want the sympathetic understanding of the noble Viscount. I do not seek to do anything that he does not wish to do, but I would argue that the Bill as it stands to-day will affect the vast majority of cinemas and prevent them from supplying bona fide members of the audience with those things with which the Government wish them to be supplied. Owing to the construction of about 75 per cent. of the cinemas of this country it is physically impossible to put the sweet kiosk in a part of the theatre to which no members of the public other than members of the audience have access. That is the difficulty. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is
784
knowledgeable on the architecture of cinemas, but at least in the provinces he will find that most of the kiosks from which confectionery and tobacco are sold are on the public side of the box office; and they are, admittedly, used as sweet shops during the time that sweet shops are allowed to be open because the public have access to them.
I am in entire sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount a moment or two ago—that we must hold the balance fairly as between one trader and another. I do not want our cinema sweet kiosks to compete unfairly with the ordinary sweet shop; I do not want that kiosk to be open to ordinary members of the public as long as the cinema is open, which would be to a later hour than ordinary sweet shops across the street. My difficulty—which the noble Viscount will see—is this: that if he and I, together with our respective wives, were members of an audience, and if we listened to their blandishments and were persuaded to buy them each a box of chocolates in a theatre where the kiosk was on the wrong side of the pay box, we should have to go out and come back again into the theatre. Very likely we should have to pay another entrance fee. I do not know how to get over that at the moment, except by the Amendment that I have put down, providing that it should be open to a bona-fide member of the audience to purchase those things which it is open to him to purchase, even if the site from which he is to buy them is in a part of the theatre to which the public have access. I hope that I have made myself clear. I would put the responsibility upon the theatre proprietor to see that none other than bona-fide members of the audience went to that kiosk during hours which would be prohibited to the general public. If the noble Viscount can see a better way out I will readily accept it. At the moment I cannot, and I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 16, after the second (" a ") insert (" bona-fide ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in admitting that he succumbs to the blandishments of his wife to touch forbidden fruit, is a true son of Adam.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not forbidden fruit.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think there is no harm in doing that—at any rate, no more harm than there ever was. But I think the better way is shortly this. At an earlier point in the Committee stage on this Bill I agreed to exempt sweets in general from the restrictions on trading. If I do that, the Amendment may be unnecessary, though the noble Lord will still, of course, retain his right on Report to move any Amendment that he thinks suitable. Even if the Amendment were not unnecessary, I should be inclined 10 think that it would be objectionable as giving an advantage to the cinema as against the sweetshop. At any rate, we need not quarrel about that. If I am going to do something for everyone there is no need to do it, for a defined and limited class.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, and I am not going to press the Amendment. But will he bear this in mind? You can buy sweets in a cinema right up to the time of closing of the cinema, which may be as late as ten o'clock, so long as you buy them from a tray. But if the noble Viscount's wife, or my wife, has rather more expensive tastes, which cannot be satisfied from the contents of the tray, one is debarred from going to the kiosk to buy a box of chocolates because it is in the part of the theatre to which the public has access. I shall be glad if the noble Viscount will bear that in mind. I am grateful for his promise to give consideration to this, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
5.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to paragraph 9:
"or (e) at any garden, park or open space under the control of a public authority."
The noble Earl said: This Schedule allows the sale of guide-books at museums or art galleries, places of natural beauty or historic interest, zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, and many other places, including the Festival Pleasure Gardens in London. It does not appear, however, to allow the sale of guide-books in parks or gardens managed by local authorities. Let us look at the
786
position in London. There are a number of very agreeable parks which are run by the London County Council. For instance, there is, in this part of London, Battersea Park, and, rather further east, Victoria Park. These parks are open on Sundays and in the summer months, when people like to be in such places fairly late, they remain open long after shops are closed. Why should not these places also be places where guide-books may be sold on Sundays, and also late in the evening, and at any time when the public is allowed to frequent them? The object of the Amendment—which is a liberalising Amendment—is to extend the number of places where guide-books and other things that are relevant can be sold to the public when they go there. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 55, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I personally am rather sceptical about this Amendment. I realise that its scope would be limited to the sale of guide-books, reproductions of works of art, picture postcards, photographs, photographic films or photographic plates or souvenirs. So, to some extent, it would not open the flood gates, as they are called. But I must say that the prospect of an "open space"—to quote the words of the Amendment—being subject to an exemption, even as wide as that which I have just read, fills me with a certain amount of disquietude. I can see at once, of course, why the Bill as it stands allows these guide-books and so forth to be sold at the places mentioned, including the Festival Pleasure Gardens in Battersea Park. But I cannot see why, for instance, the London County Council should want to sell a guide-book in Lincoln's Inn Fields, or even in Battersea Park itself, outside the Pleasure Gardens.
When we come to places like a bird sanctuary, or the National Trust property in the Peak District of Derbyshire (which I suppose is an open space; it certainly is not a closed one), I begin to think that the Amendment goes beyond anything that really is necessary. My own feeling is that the Bill already provides what is necessary. If mere are any classes of places not included in paragraph 9 which the London County Council has specifically in mind, I will gladly

787
undertake to consider whether they could be included in the Bill by way of exemption. But I feel that to allow any place to be exempt from the provisions of the Bill for the sale of photographs—which might include any kind of photographs—simply because it is controlled by a public authority (I think that is the phrase) is too wide. So I ask the noble Earl not to press this Amendment, though if he has something quite specific in mind I certainly will undertake to pass it on with a view to its being considered.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think there is a great deal of force in the noble Viscount's arguments. Clearly, the wording of the Amendment, as he suggests, can be construed rather widely. The words "open space", particularly, might be open to be construed too widely. The sort of example I will give the noble Viscount is the exhibition of sculpture which is staged in Battersea Park. I will certainly take advantage of the noble Viscount's suggestion that I should consult with the London County Council and find out whether there are any specific places which they think ought to be included in this part of the Schedule as places that are exempted under the Bill. In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph 11, after "vehicles" to insert "caravans, trailers". The noble Lord said: Paragraph 11 of this Second Schedule exempts:
"The sale of parts of, or accessories to, or fuel or lubricants for, vessels, aircraft, mechanically propelled vehicles, cycles or agricultural machinery or equipment."
At an earlier period I tried to tempt the noble Viscount into giving me a definition of "mechanically propelled vehicles," but he was too quick. I think he did venture to go so far as to say that a vehicle that was propelled by a mechanically propelled vehicle could not be called a mechanically propelled vehicle.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I said that a caravan was not a mechanically propelled vehicle unless it had an engine of its own.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What I seek to do here is to exempt also
788
caravans and trailers. It is, I suggest, rather ludicrous that you are empowered to get a spare tyre for your motor car—indeed, you can get a spare tyre or anything for your motor car—on a Sunday, or at any time after the place is open, irespective of anything in this Bill, yet you cannot get some part or a tyre for your trailer or caravan. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that the number of caravans that are trailed about behind motor cars or tractors, constitute a fair proportion of the traffic on the road to-day; and if you are going to say that spare parts may be obtained for motor cars, it is difficult to say that attachments like that may not be similarly treated. So I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 37, after (" vehicles ") insert (" caravans, trailers ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord will remember that I gave an undertaking to consider an earlier Amendment of his with regard to the sale of mechanically propelled vehicles. This Amendment deals with parts of these. I think that there is a great deal of force in what he says, but I would ask him not to press the Amendment in the words in which he has put it, because I should like to consider this point in connection with the more substantive matter of the vehicles themselves, and perhaps I could deal with the two together on Report stage.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I wonder if the noble Viscount could deal with a small point, which I think it is appropriate to put in now—namely, the definition of "aircraft". Could the noble Viscount see that it includes (it may already do so) gliders and is not strictly confined to power-driven machines? There are many clubs with motorless aircraft which one would like to see covered by this definition.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I shall certainly make a note of that. I have not had notice of it, but it seems to me to be a reasonable point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful for the noble Viscount's undertaking to look at this question in the general consideration of motor vehicles.

789
Reserving my right to put the Amendment down again if the reconsideration is not satisfactory—though I do not think I shall be driven to that necessity—I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved to add to the Schedule:
"22. The sale of omnibus, coach, rail, sea and air transport timetables."
The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands. I think it is clear that the sale of timetables constitutes retail trade. Part II of the Third Schedule refers to periodicals and guides but does not appear to refer to timetables. Even if it did, that would not permit the sale of timetables at all hours of the day and night, which is what is desired. It is true to say that there have net been any practical difficulties under the present law and I do not suppose that there will be under the Bill as drafted, but it seems to me that this matter should be put on a proper basis. It should be made clear that it is legal to sell timetables by clay or night without the slightest risk of prosecution. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 11, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Gifford.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As the noble Lord said, this is not a large matter, but at the moment the Government find it difficult to believe that there is any substantial demand for timetables after seven o'clock in the evening. It is true that there may be a demand for information after seven o'clock in the evening about the time of the departures of particular trains, but in the view of the Government the practice of travellers is to ask the station staff for the information they require, not to buy a timetable. I am not in the least poking fun at the noble Lord's Amendment, which seems to me to have a reasonable object in view, if there were a substantial demand for it. The Bill is already being complained of as being unduly complex and detailed. There are some people who do not like it at all, as I noticed from The Times leader this morning, which I thought singularly ill-informed about the actual provisions of the Bill, even more than usual criticisms. If we are to have a Bill of this kind, I should have thought that it should not be made unworkable by the addition of particular classes of
790
goods for which it is difficult to conceive a genera] substantial demand after shopping hours. If there is strong evidence of a substantial demand and of passengers going about in dire peril and misery because they cannot buy timetables at eight o'clock in the evening, I think I should advise my right honourable friend to do something. But I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is necessary to introduce an additional exemption for this rather limited class of reading matter.
LORD GIFFORD: By leave of the Committee, I would like to say that, most definitely, transport undertakings get a demand for the purchase of timetables at all hours of the day and night. Let me remind your Lordships that many long-distance buses and trains leave late at night. People going off on a holiday and maybe going on further trips during their holiday want to take a timetable with them to plan their journey. I was not anxious to press the Amendment, as difficulties had not arisen in the past, but from what the noble Viscount said it would be ultra vires to sell timetables outside permitted hours. Therefore I should be much obliged if he could consider the matter again. As one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who are in the travel business, I assure him that there is a demand. After all, there is a twenty-four-hour service at airports, and there is a definite demand for timetables at all times.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Airports are dealt with especially in paragraph 7 of the Schedule. The picture which the noble Lord has to draw in order to arouse my sympathy for his beleaguered traveller is not that of the man at the airport who has forgotten to plan his journey to South America and wants to look up a train on the Pernambuco railway, which I concede he could do if the airport bookstall had one in stock. The picture that the noble Lord has to paint in order to wring my withers is that of the man who cannot find an ordinary bookseller open after seven at right to buy a timetable. I should have thought that there is a very limited demand for that class of shop to be open and no need for the Amendment at all; but I will report what my noble friend has said to my right honourable friend, who is in a much better position to judge these things

791
than I am. As I have said frequently, the last thing I want to do is to give the impression of being dogmatic, but I should have thought that the noble Lord had not made out a case for a special exemption here, though I would recognise at once a case for the exemption of bookstalls at railway stations.
LORD GIFFORD: I do not want to labour the point, but I would point out that though some are sold at bookstalls, timetables are often sold at booking offices. Although timetables used to be given away, they are now expensive books to produce and they are sold at booking offices by the clerks who issue tickets to travellers. I want to see that these men are able to sell timetables through the window of the ticket office for the appropriate 6d., or whatever it may be, without running the risk of prosecution. I am not thinking so much of the bookstalls in this case.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will certainly see that what the noble Lord has said is passed on. I do not want to dash or raise any hopes at this stage, because the picture of these late-hour rushes for timetables is a relatively novel one to me and it may be that I am ill-informed on the subject.
LORD GIFFORD: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, That the Second Schedule stand part of the Bill:
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to detain the Committee for any length of time, but the discussion that we have had, on this Schedule, lasting a good many hours, indicates that perhaps this is not the wisest way of dealing with this matter at all. There are twenty-one paragraphs in this Schedule. We have tried, and I am sure Her Majesty's Government have tried, to incorporate in this Schedule every conceivable kind of activity which it is desired should take place on a Sunday or out of hours; but I should be astonished if we have thought of everything. I shall be astonished if after this Bill has been passed the Government do not wish they had put in other items. On the other hand, I shall equally be
792
surprised if they do not find some items here which prove unworthy of having been put in this category.
For that reason, though I share the distaste which most people have for delegated legislation, I should have thought that this was essentially a case for delegated legislation—that is, for giving a Secretary of State the power, from time to time, to make regulations adding to or deleting from the list, as circumstances arise. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, may well be right in saying that timetables should be considered, or my noble friend Lord Listowel may discover some park or open space where it may be desirable to sell photographs. With delegated authority it will be possible, by regulations, to add to the list, as the necessity emerges, other activities which can be undertaken on a Sunday. I put that suggestion forward for consideration. I know the noble and learned Viscount will consider it and will put it before his noble friend who is in charge of the Bill. Had what I have suggested been done, it might have saved us a lot of time in the passage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Of course I will do so. Anything which falls from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is treated by me with the utmost respect. But this is rather "where I came in" this afternoon. When I came in this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, from the Front Bench of the Labour Party, was pressing me with the utmost strength to abandon the right of regulation under Clause 11 and to write it all into the Statute Book, which he said would be much more convenient. Then comes the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asking why we should have this elaborate Schedule and saying we should knock it out of the Schedule and put it all in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. Before I left for my public appointment the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said to me: "We hope you are not going to abandon this altogether, as a Bill." And then the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party said: "Unless you do something which radically alters it, we are going to vote against it on Third Reading". And at a later stage the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, twitted me for not "setting the people free." I do not suppose a Minister on his maiden voyage in charge of a Bill has ever been so bewildered by so many

793
divergent courses pressed upon him by so many eminent Peers. They are all very forceful pieces of advice. The only thing of which I am quite certain is that they cannot all be right.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount has made a very clever retort. He has made the most of the differences of opinion which may exist on this side of the House, but this is not a Party suggestion and I do not put it forward on behalf of my Party. I do so because the experience of the last few hours suggests to me that, whatever other people may have said, this is a helpful piece of advice. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will take it in that spirit. I certainly was not trying to score from him and I am sure he is not really trying to score from any of my noble friends.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Will the noble Lord take it from me at once that I was not? My gentle humour was not intended maliciously; but having, like the noble and learned Lord, spent some hours in Committee on the Bill, I could not help observing, in philosophical but faintly humorous vein, upon the divergent courses pressed on me from different eminent sources. I quite agree that the noble Lord's suggestion was not put forward in any Party spirit and it was certainly not taken in any Party spirit.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Goods whose sale is permissible in England and Wales on Sunday until 7 p.m. or other time fixed by local authority]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount to turn his mind for a moment to the last section of the Schedule, to the subject of
"…frozen or dried fruit and…frozen or dried vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
I assume that mushrooms should be included because although I have never come across frozen mushrooms, I have come across dried ones; and presumably if one can have dried mushrooms one can have dried edible fungi of other kinds—if one is brave enough to face them. This seems to me to raise a point of some importance because, clearly, fresh fruit and vegetables are sold by greengrocers, whereas these frozen or dried articles are
794
sold not only by greengrocers but also by ordinary grocers who sell any number of other articles as well. If the ordinary grocer is to be allowed to open on a Sunday (as he will be allowed to do under the terms of this Schedule) for the sale of frozen or dried fruit and vegetables, there is obviously very wide opportunity for the sale of other goods as well.
Is it really necessary to include them? And if dried fruit is included, where is the line drawn? Why not include tinned fruit? If the grocer is allowed to sell dried raisins or apricots, why should he not sell tinned peaches or pears? I feel that this last section of the Third Schedule deserves careful scrutiny; and although I have not put down an Amendment I should be extremely obliged if the noble and learned Viscount would ponder on this matter between now and the Report stage of the Bill.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Provisions as to exercise of order-making powers of local authorities]:
5.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph 3 (2) (a), to leave out "were entitled to vote" and insert "voted". The noble Earl said: This Schedule deals with the powers of local authorities to make orders under the Bill. Under the procedure proposed in the Bill, to make an order the local authority have first to get the consent of a majority of persons entitled to vote—that is to say, a majority of ratepayers. As your Lordships are well aware, it is extremely difficult to find out what a majority of ratepayers think, or will think, about an order which a local authority propose to make. The ratepayers are not likely to be deeply stirred by the terms of the order. The difficulty is that if this procedure is laid down by Statute it is quite likely that local authorities will be unable to make any orders at all. For that reason I commend to the noble and learned Viscount the alternative procedure suggested in my present and subsequent Amendments to the Schedule: that the local authority should be empowered to make an order by getting a majority of votes in favour of the order.
May I give the Committee an example of how this procedure is used at the

795
present time? If a metropolitan borough want to promote a Public Bill they convene a public meeting of the ratepayers and, unless agreement is abundantly clear, take a vote. If they get a majority vote they can proceed with the Bill. All I am suggesting is that local authorities should be able to proceed with the making of orders if they can get a majority of votes from people entitled to vote at a meeting convened for the purpose of considering the order, or, indeed, in any other way. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, even if he does not agree with my alternative procedure, will at any rate suggest some way of getting round the procedure laid down in the Bill which may well have the effect of making it impossible for local authorities to make any orders at all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 40, leave out (" were entitled to vote ") and insert (" voted ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Earl inadvertently made one error in what he said. The voters are shopkeepers and not ratepayers.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is correct.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Earl inadvertently said ratepayers, when in fact it is shopkeepers who have to vote in these polls. The Bill as it stands represents the view of the Gowers Committee. It provides that the shopkeepers would have to know of the holding of the poll, because under paragraph 4 (d) of the Schedule regulations will require voting papers to be sent to all entitled to vote. It should not be forgotten that some of these orders which are made by the local authority will be restrictive and some will be liberalising. The restrictive ones may be those orders fixing early closing hours or days to be observed as early closing days. On the other hand, as I say, some will be liberalising: for instance, orders allowing more shopping hours in holiday resorts during season.
The issue one has to decide on this Amendment is whether the majority which has to support the local authority before they can act should be a majority of those entitled to vote or of those
796
voting. I do not think it would necessarily follow that one would come to the same conclusion in the case of every kind of proposed order. The point is whether one counts the shopkeepers who are too apathetic to vote as among the ayes or the noes on such an issue. My own feeling is that probably the Bill, which prevents the local authority from acting unless they get a majority of the shopkeepers behind them, is more liberal than the proposed Amendment. I should like to consider this point further, and possibly also my right honourable friend might wish to consider the reactions of another place to this question. I do not think the Government have an established view, but I would ask the noble Earl not to press the Amendment, at any rate until the matter has been further considered, because, as at present advised, we are inclined to think that the Bill is better than the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his undertaking that this matter will be given further consideration, and on that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment suggests that, in order to assess the votes to which a shopkeeper is entitled, one should take into account whether he has a number of shops or a number of stalls, and distribute the votes accordingly. The proposal in the Bill is that is should be a vote a head, so to speak. Whether a shopkeeper has a big business, and a bigger stake in the neighbourhood than other shopkeepers, or only a small shop, or perhaps one stall, everyone is to be on the same democratic footing. That may be right, or it may not. I have put down the Amendment so that the Government can consider the alternative procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 24, at end insert:
(" (8) A person entitled to vote in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall be entitled to record one vote in respect of each shop occupied by him or each retail trade or business carried on by him otherwise than in a shop in the area to which the order if in force would relate.")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is another matter on which I confess at once that I would not go to the stake in either direction—if one can go to the stake in a direction. The Bill, as at present drafted, provides: one man, one vote; and prima facie I should have thought that was the best plan. The noble Earl suggests: one shop, one vote, which would give a chain store in a locality a preference over the small shopkeeper. Again, prima facie I should have thought that was not the best plan. Moreover, it would raise certain difficulties about the man who had vans and not shops—though that could be dealt with by a more elaborate drafting of the Amendment. Again, my own feeling is that we had better leave it as it is. On the whole, I think the Government are right. Again, it is something to which I should like to give further consideration, and possibly also my right honourable friend might care to consider it in another place. The Government have no established view, but the view I have put forward tentatively to the Committee is that "One man, one vole," is a fairly safe, democratic practice.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount. I am not prepared to go to the stake about this Amendment, or even to the Division Lobby. Accordingly I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING-INDUSTRIES (NO. 2) BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.