Lords Sitting of 7 May 1957

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

R.A.F. TRAINING FLYING ON SUNDAYS
2.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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 all training flying can be discontinued from R.A.F. airfields on the Sabbath and holy days.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, training flying in the Royal Air Force on Sundays is already kept to a minimum. Some Sunday flying is, however, necessary to exercise auxiliary fighter control units and other non-Regular units which can practise only at week-ends. In addition, certain major exercises, such as the Annual Defence Exercise, have to extend over weekend periods. For the rest, Sunday training flying is confined to those rare occasions when flying training programmes have fallen into arrear because of bad weather, or when unusual urgency attaches to the completion of the programme. There is normally no training flying on Good Friday or on Christmas Day.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which I am sure will give a great amount of satisfaction to a large number of people. As I do not wish to weary your Lordships, if I could give the noble Lord specific cases where in my view his Answer does not fit, will he be kind enough to give me an undertaking that he will look into them?
LORD MANCROFT: Certainly.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question? I think I shall be in order in asking the noble Lord who gave such an adequate reply whether
294
anything can be done to stop political speeches on Sunday.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that supplementary, I think, hardly arises out of this Question. So far as I know, it applies only to one political Party, for which I am not in a position to answer.

HYDROGEN BOMB EXPLOSIONS
VISCOUNT THURSO: 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 the number of hydrogen bombs exploded by the Governments of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. during 1956, and the number exploded up to the present date in 1957; the sites of these explosions and the approximate number of people living within 750,000 square miles of the sites; whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the estimate by the American scientist, Dr. Linus Pauling, that the explosion of the British hydrogen bomb, if it takes place this year, will result in the deaths of at least one thousand people; and whether they have any idea of the number of deaths caused by the Russian and American explosions which have taken place during 1956 and 1957.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, from the beginning of 1956 to the present time fourteen nuclear tests by the U.S.S.R. have been reported and the United States authorities have announced that they have carried out one test series. I cannot say how many thermo-nuclear explosions were included in these tests. The Russian tests are believed to have occurred in South-West Siberia. The United States tests took place in the Marshall Islands. It is impossible to give even a rough estimate of the number of people living within the 750,000 square miles of the test sites in either case. The Medical Research Council, to whom the Government look for advice on radiation hazards, take the view that there is insufficient evidence to justify making the kind of estimate which has been attributed to Dr. Linus Pauling. We

295
have no information that any deaths have been caused by the Russian and American explosions during 1956–57.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the full Answer which he has given to my rather unusually detailed Question. But could the noble Earl say whether there is any evidence to show that it has been the practice of the Government of the U.S.S.R. to make effective clearances of, let us say, roughly 750,000 square miles, like the one we are making, before these tests are carried out; or are the unfortunate people living within range of the fall-out of these tests left to their own chances of survival?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have no information either way. Certainly I do not think we have any information that the areas have been cleared. In fact, we have no information to show how the Russians deal with the area and the people in it before the tests are made.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, would it not be possible to ascertain whether in fact there have been transferences of population on a substantial scale in order to save them from the effects of possible fall-out? Surely movements of population on this scale could hardly escape the investigation of Her Majesty's Government. Could the Government ascertain whether there is any trace at all of the making of movements to safeguard lives in the case of these Russian tests?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I will, of course, try to ascertain the facts for the noble Viscount. But great movements of population for various purposes go on within the Soviet Union, and I am not sure whether we shall be able to produce the information for which he asks. But I will try.

TROOPING AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS
LORD OGMORE: 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 how many aircraft accidents involving
296
Service personnel or families have taken place in each of the years 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957, distinguishing between accidents to (a) Service, and (b) charter or contract aircraft; and whether any action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in 1954 there were three accidents to Royal Air Force transport aircraft engaged on trooping in which passengers were killed or injured; in 1955 and 1956 there were none; in 1957 there have been two. The comparable figures for charter aircraft were one in 1954, none in 1955, three in 1956, and one in 1957. During this time over half a million passengers have been carried. While we shall continue to watch the position very closely, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the accident record either of Transport Command or of the charter companies gives cause for anxiety.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government state how many people have lost their lives this year in such accidents, and will they now allow the Air Corporations to tender for trooping contracts?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question without notice, but if he will put a Question down I will certainly provide him with the information. As to the second supplementary question, I will consult my right honourable friend.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord, in consulting his right honourable friend with regard to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, bear in mind that the Air Corporations will have to bear the brunt of the transporting in time of war? Why should they not be able to get a fair share in time of peace? As to the other Answer the noble Lord gave, I hope he will accept it from me that his—I will not say complacency; I would never accuse him of that; but his statement regarding the number of accidents this year and the loss of personnel in Service accidents is causing considerable disquiet.
LORD GIFFORD: May I ask the noble Lord whether there is any reason to

297
believe that the charter companies do not operate their aircraft with both safety and efficiency?
LORD MANCROFT: The charter companies do operate their aircraft with safety and efficiency. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, acquitted me of complacency. I had no intention whatsoever of giving that impression, nor indeed did I. Without appearing to be complacent, I must remind your Lordships that the number of accidents for the period in question is so small as to be statistically insignificant. That, of course, entirely omits the question of human tragedy. The other question the noble Lord asked me concerning the whole question of air trooping is of a much wider nature. I am afraid I should like to see it on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, when the noble Lord is giving his attention to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would it not be a great advantage if the independent operators—if, indeed, they are, as he says and as I believe they are, as safe in their operations as the Corporations are in theirs—were encouraged to extend their field, so that, in the event of war, Transport Command would have for their reinforcements a healthy civil air service of independent operators as well as the statutory Corporations, just as the Royal Navy for so many generations have been able to call upon the Mercantile Marine to help them in their operations in wartime?
LORD MANCROFT: There is much in what the noble Viscount says, but the whole question of air trooping goes far beyond the Question which the noble Lord has on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, do not the private traders themselves say that they cannot afford to buy very modern and up-to-date aircraft such as those used by the Corporations? In a great number of cases what they purchase are second-hand aeroplanes and at much lower than normal prices. Unless something is done about that, we shall probably go on having some accidents and loss of life. As loss of life in this way in Service trooping is much greater, apparently, than in other means of transit, it seems unreasonable that something further should not be done about it.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Viscount will forgive me for saying it, but I do not think that is a very helpful supplementary question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not mind.
LORD MANCROFT: Nothing that the noble Viscount says will detract from the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. The operators who fly those aircraft have to undergo very stringent tests and the safety regulations are most stringently observed. That is the important point arising out of this Question.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on Recommitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: As this Bill has already been in Committee, I will, with your Lordships' permission, where there are two or more consecutive clauses to which no Amendment has been put down put the clauses en bloc and ask your Lordships to stop me if there are any points you wish to raise on those clauses.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that occasionally we might want to speak on the Question that the clause stand part. If the clauses are to be put en bloc, there may be a difficulty.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Of course, I will stop and give time for any Member of the House to raise points on any clause.
Clause 1:
Weekday closing times
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and to the following provisions of this Act, every shop shall be closed—

(a) on each of the weekdays (except one) on each week, not later than seven o'clock in the evening or such earlier time as may be fixed by order of the local authority within whose area the shop is situate; and

(b) on the remaining weekday of each week (which shall he ascertained in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act and is therein referred to as the "late day"), not later than eight o'clock in the evening or such earlier time as may be fixed as aforesaid:

Provided that on any weekday which by this Part of this Act is required to be observed as respects a shop as an early closing day the shop shall be closed not later than one o'clock in the afternoon.
(2) An order under this section may be so framed as to extend to the whole of the area of the authority by whom it is made or to part only of that area, as to have effect as respects the generality of shops within the area to which it extends (either without exception or subject to an exception for shops where a particular trade or business is carried on) or as respects shops within that area where a particular trade or business is carried on, and as to have effect either at all times or at particular periods of the year, and different times may be fixed by order under this section—

(a) for the purposes of different trades or businesses;

(b) as respects different parts of the area of the authority;

(c) on different days in the same week or the same day in different weeks;

but the fixing, by an order under this section, of a time for the purposes of a particular trade or business shall not, in the case of a shop where that trade or business is carried on, operate so as to require it to be closed not later than that time for the purposes of any other trade or business carried on therein.
(3) The power conferred on a local authority by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not be so exercised as to fix a time earlier than six o'clock in the evening, and the power conferred on a local authority by paragraph (b) of that subsection shall not be so exercised as to result in a shop's being required to be closed on the late day in any week for the purposes of trade or business of any kind earlier than one hour after the latest of the times at which it must, by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, be closed on other weekdays of that week for the purposes of trade or business of that kind.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM) moved, in subsection
300
(1), to leave out "to the provisions of this section and". The noble Viscount said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 are considered simultaneously. They all relate to the same subject matter. I am anxious not to spend a great deal of time on matters which will be within your Lordships' recollection. Your Lordships will remember that on the previous Committee stage my noble friend Lord Coleraine, on an Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked for the omission from the first clause of the Bill of the provisions providing for local option, and indeed he pressed that case rather strongly. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201 (No. 31), col. 698]:
"In contiguous areas, that situation leads to anomalies; it gives advantage to one trader as against another, and does, to some extent, prejudice the customer. Further, from the point of view of large-scale retail organisation, which is very economical organisation, it becomes difficult if, in fairly narrowly defined geographical areas, there is a great variation of practice between one street and another, or between one side of a street and the other."
He went on, at some length, to press his point.
The Government are anxious to meet criticisms wherever they legitimately can. At the original Committee stage I gave an undertaking in the following terms. I said that I was attracted by the suggestion of my noble friend; I agreed with him that variation as between locality and locality can cause anomalies, and even injustice, and I promised to report what he had said to my right honourable friend for his sympathetic consideration. The outcome is the present series of four Amendments. The previous version of the Bill followed the existing practice and the recommendations of the Gowers Committee, but my right honourable friend, having considered the arguments of my noble friend, has decided to allow me, if the House agrees, to make a concession in this respect. I therefore commend these four Amendments to the House. Their effect will be to liberalise in effect the provisions of the Act, because it will remove from the local authority the power to render the provisions of the Act more stringent, which was the object of the Bill as drafted and passed in the first Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out (" to the provisions of this section and ".—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am exceedingly sorry that the right honourable friend of the noble Viscount has given way to clamour on this point. It is very discouraging for people who have been working for decades to try to get progress in matters of this kind to find in this House, both from one or two noble Lords opposite and from the Liberal Benches, a lack of progressive outlook. I think that one of the most disappointing leaders I have ever read in The Times was the one I read this morning with regard to this Shops Bill. The kind of concession which has just been uttered by the Minister will only harden the hearts and make much more determined the attitude of the organised trade unions in this matter. That is quite clear. I have taken proper steps to ascertain what is now the opinion
Resolved in the, affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment involves the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out from (" evening ") to (" and ") in line 15.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to make a comment before this second Amendment is put. I shall not speak on the other
302
of the very large union organising shop assistants in this matter upon this question. Here we have the sweeping arrangement under which the right and power of local authorities to officiate in this matter according to the wishes of the majority of the traders in their area is taken away from them by Statute. Is that progress in local government? Is that bringing anything like justice to the majority of people in this matter. Of course it is not. I am not going to make a long speech about it, but I protest, from all my experience of the distributive trade, that such an Amendment is not required; it is totally reactionary, and I hope that when it comes to another place it will be very severely operated against and checked.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Aberdare, L.

Grantchester, L.

Amulree, L.

Gridley, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Barnby, L.

Hawke, L.

Birdwood, L.

Jessel, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Blackford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Lothian, M.

Chesham, L.

Leconfield, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Rea, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Perth, E.

Dynevor, L.

Saltoun, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sinha, L.

Devonport, V.

Gifford, L.

Strang, L.

Hailsham, V.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Maugham, V.

Glentanar, L.

Swaythling, L.

Monck, V.

Glyn, L.

Teviot, L.

Thurso, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

Mathers, L.

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kershaw, L.

Pakenham, L.

Lawson, L.

Wise, L.

two, because they only apply the same principle. There is something which I intended to say. There is now added a further inconsistency in the Government's policy in regard to shopping hours. At different stages in this Bill you will find remaining in the hands of local authorities special local powers to make orders to expand the hours. The Government are taking away from the local authorities that great principle of local option which has appeared so much in modern Statutes passed by Parliament,

303
in which they can, in meeting the wishes of the majority of the local residents, keep the hours to as short a time as may be. So you are defeating the policy of local option in this case whilst extending it in others where it will be more reactionary. I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in making this position quite plain to the people in the country who have to work in the industry.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure that if the noble Viscount makes it quite plain he will also make it quite accurate. The policy of the Government in this case is to secure a greater degree of uniformity in the direction of liberalisation. The noble Viscount is entitled to his opinion, but so are other people. At least so far as I am concerned, the Government and I think also my right honourable friend, are not approaching this Bill in a dogmatic or doctrinaire spirit at all. It will not have escaped the noble Viscount's notice—in fact, it has not escaped his notice, because he was good enough to tell us so in relation to the former Amendment—that this Bill has attracted a certain amount of criticism in the country. There can be no objection whatever to a Government's taking into account criticism and keeping the promises they made on the original Committee stage. If the noble Viscount has reason to believe that there is a great movement in the country for local option in this matter, I can only say that it has not been brought to the Government's attention. In this matter the Government seek both to be conciliatory and to pay attention to opinions of all kinds, including that of the noble Viscount.
LORD BURDEN: There is one point with regard to the local authorities to which the noble Viscount has not made reference—namely, what are the views of the local authorities on this and the other Amendments to Clause 1. Surely the local authorities have the right to be consulted in this matter. Have they been consulted? Has there been consent, or at any rate has it been agreed that they should not oppose the Amendment? On behalf of the local authorities of whom I have some knowledge and with whom I have some contact, I wish to make it quite clear that they reserve their right at a further stage in another place, to have
304
their views heard in connection with this Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: After the noble Lord's assertion, I should not like it to be thought that all local authorities necessarily hold the opinion of the local authorities that have given their views to the noble Lord opposite. I know intimately of three local authorities who are not of his opinion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment involves the same point. I do not propose to initiate a third debate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out (" or such earlier tune as may be fixed as aforesaid.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This again involves the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert
"(2) The requirements imposed by the provisions of the foregoing subsection (apart from the proviso thereto) are in this Act referred to as ' the evening closing requirements ')."—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.9 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER moved to omit Clause 1. The noble Lord said: In spite of the small improvement to which the Committee has just agreed, against what I can only call retrograde and reactionary opposition, I feel it is necessary to move the Amendment to delete this clause altogether from the Bill. I do not wish to weary the Committee with the arguments which I used on a previous occasion. All I need do, I think, is to try to counter two arguments which the noble Viscount used in rejecting any suggestion designed to create greater flexibility—I emphasise flexibility—in shopping hours.
The Committee will remember that the Gowers Committee assumed that very restricted hours for shopping had become accepted policy. They therefore refrained from taking any evidence on this matter from the public as consumers. Nor was any up-to-date evidence sought by Her Majesty's Government from the public as consumers before the introduction of this

305
Bill. The Times recently summed up the position in these words:
"Bureaucrats, trade unions and trading associations have all used their 'pull' at the expense of shoppers, who, not being organised, have had little more than lip service paid to their convenience."
On the last occasion on which I moved this Amendment, the noble and learned Viscount taunted me with the fact that if the public were really perturbed there would have been more protests; that if there was the opposition to the provisions of this Bill which I claimed, opportunity would have been found to make that opposition more vocal. I believe I can say to-day that the noble and learned Viscount on that occasion "asked for it". He has had the expression for which he asked. The protests against the restrictive provisions of this Bill which he then invited have found very vigorous expression, both in the popular Press and in what the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers is pleased to call the "serious-minded papers", such as the Manchester Guardian, the Economist and the Observer. But as the noble and learned Viscount wanted a popular expression of popular reaction, I should like to quote from the Daily Express, which sums up a discussion with this advice:
"Shops should adjust their changing times to the changing market, while the union very properly take care of the working hours at its members."
This makes the proper distinction between the hours of shop closing and the number of hours worked by a shop assistant. As we know, the object of this clause is to regulate shop hours and not the number of hours which a shop assistant should work.
One other comment out of many which have been made in the popular Press, this time from the Sunday Dispatch, will, I think, suffice:
"Customers ought to insist that shops should open or shut not according to any artificial time-table but according to the convenience of the customer and the readiness of the shopkeeper to adapt himself to it."
That the public, who are their customers, should adjust themselves to hours fixed by shopkeepers rather than that shopkeepers should serve their customers is surely an example of topsy-turvey thinking.
If the Minister requires any further evidence of popular feeling on this matter,
306
I would refer him to the memorandum from the National Council of Women, who express their views in forcible language. I understand that they have sent the noble and learned Viscount a copy. This memorandum deplores the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advance the closing time of shops. It points out that there are 3½ million married women in employment—nearly half the total number of female employees in the country. It emphasises the contradiction with the expressed intention of Her Majesty's Government to encourage staggered hours of work in order to ease the burden on transport. It refers to the great difficulties which are experienced by women in doing their household shopping outside their working hours. It records the opinion that freedom of action could well be given to shopkeepers without any hardship befalling their employees. It considers that the clause makes unnecessary difficulties and produces frustration. I submit that in view of the evidence of public feeling on this matter which has now been received from customers, the Minister should change his attitude. After all, there is no possible reason for the existence of a shop other than to serve the customers whom it seeks to attract, and there is no valid excuse for clamping restrictions on the hours of opening on working days in which shopkeepers seek to serve the convenience of their customers.
I want to come back for a moment to this question of hours of working as distinct from shopping hours. On the last occasion that this matter was discussed, the noble and learned Viscount admitted that most shop assistants are members of a union which can look after their interests; but he emphasised that there are many small shopkeepers who run their business as a family business, and he was concerned about what might happen to them if the freedom for which I am asking was granted. Some shopkeepers—some small shopkeepers—may prefer very restricted shopping hours as providing for them an easier life without their having to worry about competition from more energetic rivals. I do not think that that argument can be acceptable to a Minister of a Party which professes to be believe in individual enterprise and which recently has urged the elimination of practices in industry which

307
are designed to restrict and limit competition.
I believe that to provide any kind of justification for the argument that these small shopkeepers should be restricted, the Minister would have to prove the probability of a great social evil which might arise from the exercise of this freedom. I am sure that he cannot do that today. In the days of his distinguished grandfather, to which he referred, when parents could make greater demands on their children and when the claims of education were less insistent, it might have been possible to make some kind of case along those lines. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that such an argument today is an insult to the work of education done by the Ministry over which the noble and learned Viscount so ably presides. The present generation is well equipped to protect itself, and there is no evidence that it wishes to use its freedom to overstrain itself by unnecessary or unproductive overwork.
I suggest that this matter is more important than Her Majesty's Government seem to have realised when they "trotted out" what they called a "tidying up" measure. The imposition of more restrictions on working days of shopkeepers is surely a blow calculated to undermine the initiative of a "nation of shopkeepers." If this clause is dropped, then, of course, some consequential Amendments will be necessary. The tidying up provisions can still be saved if the Government wish. I suggest that this restrictive clause should be dropped. More is at stake than shop hours, important as is that question. There is no adventure like the adventure of growing up, and the privilege of growing up and determining how they will offer their services must not be denied to shopkeepers, who are amongst the most individualistic and independent-minded members of the community. They do not need this sort of protection which is rightly extended to children and imbeciles.
The pattern of shopping, like many other customs, is steadily changing, and late night opening is appreciated by the public. In one large and progressive stores with a reputation for looking after their staff as well as for service to the public these extra hours of opening have enabled them to increase their rates of pay and to pay a Christmas bonus. To
308
the shopkeeper, his shop and its equipment are his plant. Freedom to utilise it to secure maximum profitability is just as much his right as that of any factory owner. Ministers have spoken of creating an "Opportunity State." I ask what sort of an "Opportunity State" are we creating in this country if the opportunity to serve customers in the most useful and efficient manner is to be denied by law to a shopkeeper?
I ask the Committee to drop this clause altogether, so as to make possible flexibility in shop hours—not necessarily longer shop-hours, for no shopkeeper would he compelled to open his shop for one minute longer than he desired. If he wished to keep to the present hours or even cut them down he would be tree to do so. But those who have other views should he equally free to do what they think is best for themselves and their customers. I should like to make my final appeal to the noble Viscount in words which he himself used last week. This freedom for which I am asking is a part, even if a small part only, of the redeployment necessary to meet the crisis of the changing conditions of the 20th century. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Grantchester.)
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Listening to the speech which has just been made has again taken me back at least fifty or sixty years. This "liberalising," which was the term attached to the acceptance of the previous Amendment by the noble Viscount, this liberalising idea, is the most extraordinary reaction I have come across in the whole of my public life. Take, for example, the kind of argument which has just been put forward—that there is no compulsion on any private trader, if we leave out Clause 1, to open his shop an hour longer than he wants to. Anyone with experience in distributive trade during the last fifty or sixty years knows that, in regard to half-holidays and daily hours of opening, unless there is some reasonable agreement about closing hours the majority of the people concerned are practically bound to keep their shops open late at night in order to keep a share of the trade others get by staying open late.

309
I have told the House before of my own personal experience. My mother was a widow. She had four children. I was the youngest. When my father died, I was twelve months old. For years my mother tramped off before eight o'clock in the mornings, and she never arrived home until ten o'clock at night. She was working in connection with a distributive shop, partly on production and partly on delivering and selling. Does anyone want to see that sort of thing come back? Does the noble Lord think for one moment that people have become so wonderfully improved in morals, religion and spiritual outlook that we can never have that sort of thing arising again if we do not have decent, national restrictive legislation in the Bill? At the time of my own introduction to politics it was Radicals of the Liberal Party who first educated me in the matter of fighting for the real freedom of the people, before any Labour Party was available in my constituency to join. We have indeed gone back a long way when we can have from the Liberal Benches a speech like the one to which we have just listened.
We are dealing now with what the noble Viscount's friend, the Minister in charge of the Bill, has put into this part of the measure as the result of the Report of the Gowers Committee. That Committee sat ten years ago. It was set up for the specific purpose of hearing both sides of the question before attempts were made to revise the legislation. It heard evidence from fifty-five different bodies representing local authorities (that is why I think my noble friend Lord Burden was well entitled to say what he did say just now about the local authority position); traders, both large and small; women's organisations, including the Standing Joint Committee representing the working women's organisations; Labour, trade unions and the Co-operative Movement; the T.U.C., representing 9 million people, and representatives of the organised working people in the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
The Government, in their wisdom, accepted the Report of the Gowers Committee. The Committee felt that there would be a reasonable amount of freedom in allowing an hour longer opening each day—and a further hour on the special days—than was the practice in more than
310
60 per cent. of the shops in the country. The noble Lord talks about the individual trader and his rights in the matter. He also talks about the big combine store which is supposed to be especially up to date. As I listened, I began to wonder which side the noble Lord is on—that of the small individual trader and individual freedom, or that of the big combine. It was. I think, one of the big combines developing one of the new supermarkets, that was taking the line to which he was referring. Almost every year of my experience in the distributive trade for more than fifty years has shown that collectivisation of the distributive trade goes on apace. Year by year collective ownership for distributive purposes increases, putting the decreasing number of private traders in a position which is a very minor one compared with what it was before.
I have no doubt that some of these organisations will be only too glad to extend their hours of business. I dare say that some would even pay bonuses to their workers. But what about the effect on the general standards of workers throughout the country? It cannot possibly be arranged that these are maintained except by adding hundreds of thousands of people to the present number of distributive workers. For the last twenty-five to thirty years we have been begged by every successive Government to do all we could to reduce the percentage of the population engaged in the distributive trades and to put more of them at work in productive industry, instead of mere servicing work. If we now do what is advocated by the noble Lord. Lord Grantchester, we shall do exactly the reverse. The distributive employees, because they have been much better educated (as the noble Lord suggested) and better organised into their trade unions, will not allow any attempt to introduce a partial shift system without a struggle. The people who talk so much about the necessity of the working people of this country having good will in these matters ought at least to pay a little more attention to the collective view of the workers about the conditions under which they should work.
3.31 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I think that I approach this problem with a more open mind than either the noble Lord,

311
Lord Grantchester, who moved this Amendment, or the noble Viscount who has just spoken. Though I have no doubt whatever that in the view of the noble Viscount I am a reactionary, I would nevertheless say to him that I have no particular objection to reasonable interference with liberty, when the case for such interference is made out. On the last occasion I agreed largely with the approach of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who is in charge of the Bill. It is to some extent, I suppose, a question of the balance of evidence, and one can exaggerate the point of principle involved. I agree with him about that. Nevertheless, it is important that there should not be great interference with liberty unless there is good reason to think that that interference produces some useful consequence.
What is it that it is feared might result from carrying the Amendment proposed? One would imagine that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, thinks that the result of carrying this Amendment would be that every shop would close much later. But why on earth should it? As things are, shops do not stay open nearly so long as they may legally do. Curiously enough, this point was emphasised by an official of the trade union concerned at their recent conference. But if, at the present moment, shops do not stay open so long as they legally could, why on earth should it be supposed that they would all stay open so much longer if there were no legal restriction at all? I find it very hard to see why they should.
I do not wish to repeat the points that I made in my speech of February 12. I still believe that they are sound. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has pointed out, under this Amendment we are not discussing when shops shall shut. If his Amendment is carried, they may shut at any hour, so far as the criminal law is concerned. Nor are we discussing what is the proper maximum amount of hours of labour that should he worked by shop assistants. As I shall show, from quotations from the Gowers Committee Report, this legislation is no longer an apt instrument to regulate that matter; and I have a quotation from the T.U.C. itself in this connection. We are considering simply the question: shall it be
312
a criminal offence for a shop to remain open after a particular hour? That is the sole matter which we are considering. In trying to make up my mind on the issue raised, I have some difficulty, perhaps because I am plagued with a sense of logic, in understanding two of the arguments put forward by supporters of the Bill. On the one hand, they say that the Bill involves no hardship at all, because people do not want to stay open late; on the other, they say that the moment you allow shopkeepers to open late, they will all do so. Whichever of these two arguments one believes, I cannot think that they work very well in double harness.
I deployed my arguments in the debate of February 12, but since then I have read with interest the report of the proceedings of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers at their recent conference. At that meeting their chairman, Mr. Walter Padley, M.P., maintained that, if retailers were free to open their shops whenever they liked, they would charge higher prices. That was why, in The Times of April 25, I asked whether this had happened in countries where such freedom is enjoyed; and if so, where. I am grateful to Mr. Padley for having answered my letter eleven days later. He had an interesting letter in The Times of yesterday. I understand from that reply that the countries in which the freedom I mentioned is enjoyed are France, Italy and North America. His answer about France and Italy was that this had not led to higher prices being charged, but I must add, in fairness to his argument, that he said it had led to other bad results in the conditions of labour.
So far as North America was concerned, he said that in his view, which he supported by argument, this freedom had, in fact, resulted in higher prices. I find this a little surprising, because such experience as I have of the United States leads me to believe that a great many people in that country are not at all indifferent to prices, and if it were true that opening late meant increased prices, I should have thought it almost certain that some shops would try the experiment of closing earlier and charging lower prices. I suggest either that Mr. Padley is wrong in assuming that prices have been raised, or, if he is right, that the public think it well worth paying whatever the addition is for the additional facilities.

313
In fact, however, I think that Mr. Padley was wrong in many allegations set out in his letter. As it appeared only yesterday, I have been unable to check them all, but perhaps I may mention one. In the last paragraph of his letter he says:
"There is no need to go to other countries to prove my point."
He then refers to the experience of the sugar confectionery trade in this country. Unfortunately, however, he gives the figure of 49·5 per cent. as the total of distribution costs in that trade. My noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax can speak with far greater authority than I can on this point, but I am told that the figure of 49·5 per cent. must have been based on 1938, and that the present figure is probably under 30 per cent. That is a fairly substantial inaccuracy, 49·5 per cent., instead of under 30 per cent.
I come now to the question of liberty, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, but rather ridiculed by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I always listen with great respect to the speeches of the noble Viscount when he is basing his arguments on his own experience of a long time ago, but I would suggest to him that it is possible that conditions have changed considerably. If he will refer to the Gowers Committee Report, he will see that that Committee recognised that fact. In paragraph 10 of the Report, the first question raised is:
"In coming to a conclusion about this, what weight are we to give to the need of the shop assistant for further protection?"
The Committee expressed the view—and I ant quite prepared to accept their view—that this shop legislation has in the past been of assistance to the shop assistants. I would not deny it. The question is: is it necessary to-day, and has it a further contribution to make?
Here I would draw the attention of the Committee to some words used by the Gowers Committee in paragraph 11 of their Report. The say:
"On the former question the first thing to observe is that legislation fixing the hour at which shops must close cannot in itself ensure to shop assistants working hours which are in line with present-day practice in industry, or indeed any definite maximum at all. It is not an instrument apt for the purpose. We are satisfied that it has been of the greatest benefit in saving shop assistants from having to work hours grossly excessive. But that is
314
not the same thing, and it has in large measure already been achieved."
Then the Report goes on:
"As the General Council of the Trades Union Congress pointed out in a memorandum submitted to us, 'the method of securing a shorter working week for shop assistants by curtailing the shopping week, whilst feasible and desirable when shopping facilities were unnecessarily extensive, is now reaching its limits.' "
I pray in aid that statement by the Trades Union Congress as the clearest expression of their view that times have changed; and whatever the contribution that the shop legislation had made in the past, that does not show that it is a good instrument at the present time for securing any of those purposes, such as the limitation of the hours of shop assistants.
Before I pass from that statement I should like to draw attention to some words I have already read out. In considering this legislation, how easy it is for those who support it to slip into the language of tyranny! Look at those words:
"when shopping facilities were unnecessarily extensive ".
Who is to say that except a tyrant? It is easy to be dogmatic and to say that facilities are too extensive. But that statement falls into insignificance compared to the sort of statement of which the Gowers Committee complained, the sort of thing that was said in evidence before them which they record in paragraph 19 of their Report. They say there:
"We heard much about the public's having been 'educated' to shop earlier and the need to guard against their slipping back into bad habits."
Who are we to tell the public what their habits ought to be? I am wholly in favour of the desire both of the trade unions and of the noble Viscount to secure good conditions for shop assistants. I am certain that the union will do what unions should do and can do—that is to say, exert all their efforts in that direction. But that is not to say that it ought to be part of the criminal law of this country that a shop shall not be open after a certain hour.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I appreciate the tribute the noble Lord pays to the trade unions, but I would answer that point in this way. It took us twenty-five years of agitation in this particularly difficult distributive

315
trade to get a trade board established to fix the wages, because it was a sweated industry recognised by Parliament. The trade union that went before the Gowers Committee is a large and important unit, but you can organise only to the extent to which you have numbers employed in particular shops of a size. You cannot get trade unionism where you have one assistant, or sometimes two. They are just subject to the trade board conditions; to the minimum that can be got from a board set up by a Government in a sweated industry. The noble Lord admits that the evidence is that the existing Shops Act has helped to save sweating of that kind in the industry, yet he is not prepared to give us the wholehearted support that we deserve.
LORD CONESFORD: I have not yet indicated how I propose to vote on this Amendment; that is a subject which I now approach. In answer to what the noble Viscount has just said about there being certain shops in which trade unionism has not much chance, I would point out to him that, in conditions of full employment, if people do not like their conditions of work there are plenty of alternative employments open to them. I mentioned on the last occasion the the grounds on which I supported the proposals of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin in the Catering Wages Act, the argument, as I reminded the Committee, being that he could not direct anybody into a trade unless he was satisfied of a proper wage structure. But in circumstances in which nobody is being directed into anything, I think a far stronger reason is required than has yet been given for interfering with freedom of contract.
I now come to the difficult question of how we should vote on this Amendment. Let me say that I am going to listen to what my noble friend says in reply to this Amendment. I hope that he has considered the letter of Mr. Padley in The Times yesterday. If he has, I should like to know whether he and his economic advisers agree with the statement that prices in America have been raised by freedom regarding the hours of shops. Unless he produces a very convincing argument, I think that this Amendment has merit and deserves support. The thing that troubles me is this. I have no doubt whatsoever, speaking for
316
myself and, I expect, for many of my friends, that this is a matter in which we should unhesitatingly follow whatever may be the opinion of the House of Commons. If I were convinced that the House of Commons thought the restrictions set out in Clause 1 of this Bill were still necessary, then, whatever my personal doubts as to the philosophy underlying it, I should have no hesitation in supporting the views of the House of Commons. But here we are in the unfortunate position that the Bill has been introduced in this House, and we have not the benefit of debate in the House of Commons.
In those circumstances, I am inclined to think, subject to anything my noble friend may say, that on this occasion we should vote on what we believe to be the merits of this Amendment. If we strike the clause out, it will not stop the House of Commons putting it back or putting back any variation of it that it thinks fit. I have no doubt that the views of the House of Commons in that matter are those which I should unhesitatingly follow. But since the Bill has been introduced in this House, and since the argument on the merits so far appears to be with the Amendment and not with the clause, I think I shall vote for the Amendment unless my noble friend in charge of the Bill gives convincing reasons to the contrary.
3.54 p.m.
LORD REA: I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments before the noble Viscount replies. I think it is necessary to say that there seems to be great confusion about the straightforward motives behind this Amendment. This Bill is aimed at protecting the conditions of the shop working people. For the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition to say that the Liberals have forgotten their tradition and ideals in that respect is not quite fair. We are fully in support of the objects of this Bill, which are particularly set out in Part V, but it is the method of achieving those objects to which we take exception. We do not believe that, in order to limit the overworking of shop assistants—and we are fully in favour of stopping such overworking—it is necessary to restrict shop hours, thereby penalising the whole of the shopping public and all the small shopkeepers. We should like to see these

317
shop assistants entirely protected by legislation and looked after by their own union, which has done such good work for them in the past. We gladly grant the noble Viscount that this in the past has done a great deal for the benefit of shop assistants. But we think the time has come when other measures should be taken to protect the shop assistants, and that the people of this country should not have their liberty impinged upon in this way.
Restrictive Bills are all very well, but there must be sufficient reason before they are passed. It would be logical to say that if we could have earlier closing hours it would mean cheaper trade and reduce the cost of living. On that basis, we might have introduced a Bill which would say that nobody should leave their house after nightfall. In that way we should save a lot in police, street lighting and criminal statistics—at any rate, it is riot necessary to go out at night. We are prepared to pay something for our liberty, and the reason for this Amendment is to throw out a link between working hours and shop hours. I hope your Lordships will take note of the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, to vote according to your real feelings, and let the matter sort itself out in another place.
LORD CONESFORD: I did not give a quotation which I think deserves to be in the records of this House because it is, I think, the clearest statement I have seen of the philosophy behind this clause as it appears to some of us. It runs as follows:
"The family shop in a village or small town…is a standing reproach to initiative. To allow such shops to keep open as long as they please can only result in anarchy, and is grossly unfair to the big chain-stores, who, as it is, find it hard enough to drive the anomalous small man out of business. That the small shop is still allowed to open at all is proof of the impartiality with which the Tory Government is carrying out its policy of enterprise and opportunity."
That quotation is from my friend Beachcomber, but it is the best statement of the philosophy behind the clause that I have yet seen.
3.57 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I had not intended to intervene on this Amendment, but may I put one other point of view? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in that I do not think this type of Bill
318
is a suitable medium for controlling hours of work. I am entirely with the noble Lord that it is a Wages Council job. As I see it, if this Amendment is passed—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—it will make nonsense of the rest of the Bill, and the Bill will be withdrawn. Many people think that that would not be a bad thing. But may I say that the effect of it will be that the present Shops Act will remain in force and, quite frankly, that would be a disaster. I believe that if this Bill is lost we shall not get another Shops Bill introduced in a hurry. This new Shops Bill, when the new Government Amendments are in, is better than the existing Act. I know, at any rate, that holiday resorts are anxious to get the present Act off the Statute Book and for this Bill to become an Act as soon as possible. Before your Lordships vote in favour of the Amendment, I should like to sound that word of warning: that in my view the result would be that the present Act would stay in force. That Act is quite unenforceable, and in most cases makes complete nonsense of the law.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The only speech with which I have been in wholehearted agreement so far has been the last, because it seems to me to summarise the exact consequences which would follow almost certainly (although I speak without having consulted my right honourable friend in the matter) from the passage of this Amendment by this House at the present time. To be perfectly candid, I was in some doubt whether it would be proper for me to speak at any length in this matter at all. I expressed my views—and they were perfectly candidly expressed—when the same Amendment was proposed on the previous Committee stage. I think there is nothing quite so detestable as a Minister who repeats himself unnecessarily. I feel, on the other hand, that as several noble Lords have spoken at, perhaps I might say, some little length on the matter, it might be thought to be treating the Committee with a degree of discourtesy if I did not express my views, even if they felt that I was trespassing a little on their patience.
I must confess that I was sorry the noble Lord put down this Amendment. I have, like my noble friend and, indeed, like several of the noble Lords who have

319
spoken, spent the greater part of my adult life either in one House of Parliament or the other. I have always thought myself that the Committee stage of a Bill was the proper occasion for improvements, but that even in another place, which has a much wider range of legitimate Parliamentary tactics than we allow here by custom, the wrecking Amendment was something which was really out of place in Parliamentary procedure. Do not let us make any mistake about it—this is a wrecking Amendment, and nothing else. Do not let us deceive ourselves about it. One must accept that.
There was a Second Reading of the Bill where the principles of the Bill were fully discussed. There was a first Committee stage at which this identical Amendment was put forward. I pointed out to the Committee then that the effect of the Amendment was really to reintroduce a Second Reading debate on the first clause in the Committee stage, which I deprecated then but which I made no particular complaint about since noble Lords desired that their opinions should be heard. There has now been a second committal so that we should put forward specific proposals in accordance with certain undertakings that we made to noble Lords who pressed various Amendments upon us in the first Committee stage. Advantage has now been taken of that to reintroduce what is virtually the third Second Reading that we have had upon this Bill.
I must say, with great respect to the noble Lord who introduced this Amendment, that I find it surprising that he was unable in the course of his quite discursive speech to refer to the very considerable concessions that were being made as a result of the first Committee stage. It is true that he referred briefly to the one which we had made already, which was germane, of course, to the present topic and which provoked a violent protest from the noble Lords of the Party immediately opposite; but he did not refer to other Amendments which are even more significant. I am quite aware that the noble Lord can produce any number of expressions of doctrinaire opinion on one side or, I imagine, the other about this Bill. We have heard a certain number this afternoon. The Press is full of them and some of them were
320
quoted by noble Lords. One of them was quoted from a source outside. What I asked for on the previous occasion was a single case of specific hardship, a single concrete piece of evidence. We have had none—none this afternoon and none in the voluminous correspondence which the Government have had about the Bill—except in certain specific trades. As I pointed out on the last occasion, there is a strong case for exceptions to be made for what is called the impulse trade, in relation to sweets and tobacco. We have had a number of letters from sweet and tobacco shops complaining that early closing hours would have an adverse effect upon their trade. We are also aware of the situation with regard to holiday resorts and fishing resorts. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised a question about a specific trade, the motor car trade.
I think I am right in saying that, although this Bill has now been very carefully canvassed by public opinion, and although there have been, as I have indicated, some strong expressions of theoretical opinion (which I am bound to say I respect because they come from persons whose opinions I respect) both in favour of and against the Bill, the only complaints containing any specific evidence at all relate to the trades I have mentioned, and every one of those trades is, rightly or wrongly, dealt with in one of the concessions which we have made between the last Committee stage and this. I say this with respect—I do not say it with rancour in any way at all—that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was doing a little less than justice by having what was, in effect, a third Second Reading to this Bill, through putting down the identical Amendment which was rejected on the first Committee stage, without once referring to the fact that the extensive concessions, to which I have referred, were already on the Order Paper in the name of the Government. To refuse to take into account the conciliatory and generous Amendments which the Government have made and which have had the effect, which I would hardly say that I desired, of antagonising the Party opposite who are strongly in support of the Bill, seems to me to burke the whole question which we are discussing to-day. I think that in that we have been done a little less than justice by the noble Lord.

321
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said that he approached this matter with an open mind. Nobody's mind, I can assure my noble friend, was more open than mine when I took on this Bill. It was not my Bill. It was originally the Bill of my noble friend, whom I can see sitting below the gangway. It was not a Bill of the Department which I represented. I had previously no very strong convictions about the opening or closing of shops, and I was sincerely anxious only to do my duty to the House in piloting this Bill through it without any serious doctrinaire view in one way or the other. If I had thought that this was a serious encroachment on the liberty of the consumer, I should, I think, have used whatever little influence I possessed against the Bill. I waited to hear some evidence, which was evidence rather than mere expressions of opinion, of some sets of consumers who would be put at a serious disadvantage by it. I have heard none. I gather there is none, because, with all the wealth of scholarship and research which he usually devotes to these matters, my noble friend was unable to produce any. He sought, instead, to draw the inference that the Bill ought to be rejected, not because it was a serious infringement of liberty but because it was of only marginal utility, a criticism which I find damaging but, for reasons which I am about to adduce, not conclusive.
The situation, as I see it is, is this. Noble Lords are entitled to say by way of assertion that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the treatment of shop assistants. I do not agree with them. The main and primary purpose of this Bill, lest there be any doubt about what we are discussing here, as contained in Clause 1, was to continue closing hours for shops and to reduce their permissible hours of opening by one hour, from eight o'clock to seven o'clock. That was justified by a long Report of the Gowers Committee, setting out the arguments for and against and coming down in favour of this proposal. The object of the proposal is to continue to defend shop assistants from exploitation. I agree that in theory it would be possible to legislate for a definite number of maximum hours for shop assistants, but I venture to point out that no such legislation exists at the moment; and therefore, if this Amendment were carried with the intention, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester,
322
owned on the previous occasion—though whether he still possesses it I know not—of destroying any sort of restriction on hours for the opening of shops, the effect, and the only effect, of it would be to destroy altogether the little protection that shop assistants have, without putting anything whatever in its place.
I know that the trade unions concerned consider—and I must say I agree with them—that the only way in which one can effectively protect shop assistants at all is by limiting the number of hours for which the shops open. I know that that was the view of the Gowers Committee. It is also, as it happens, my own view, for the little that it is worth; and the reason it is my own view is that shop assistants are normally not well organised and not employed in large numbers in any one shop. The typical pattern is a shop consisting of a family with either one asistant or two assistants. It is true, as the Gowers Committee Report said in terms, that in itself shop hours legislation is not an apt instrument for the purpose of fixing a definite maximum number of hours for assistants. But that does not mean that it is not an apt instrument for providing them with some sort of protection.
In the very next sentence they said:
"We are satisfied that it has been of the greatest benefit in saving shop assistants from having to work hours grossly excessive."
I thought it was a little less than fair of my noble friend to say that because that statement is in the past tense it meant that we were now in a position not merely not to reduce the permissible hours but to abolish the restrictions altogether, for that is the effect of the Amendment for which he has announced his provisional intention to vote. The effect of the Amendment is to abolish all restrictions on hours altogether; in other words, to set aside the situation which the. Gowers Committee Report said in terms had been of the greatest benefit in saving shop assistants from having to work grossly excessive hours.
LORD CONESFORD: I would point out to my noble friend that I went on to quote the next sentence, and it was on that that I based the past tense. That sentence is:
"But that is not the same thing, and it has in large measure already been achieved."
My point about the past tense is based on that sentence.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In my rather inefficient way I was dealing with that. I was pointing out that it was not good enough for my noble friend to say it has already been achieved, because the Amendment for which he has announced his provisional intention to vote is an Amendment which abolishes that situation, so that the achievement is destroyed. My noble friend said he was plagued with a sense of logic, and he must follow the logic of the argument now presented, because my argument is slightly more logical than that he presented to the Committee. I did not intend to show any degree of warmth about this matter, because it is something which I am seeking to elucidate on the same basis as my noble friend—namely, one of practical approach and logic. The fact remains that the noble Lord's Amendment is one which would destroy a situation which is alleged by the Gowers Report to have achieved the greatest possible benefit for shop assistants. To put the Report in its proper context, I am bound to add that the Gowers Committee went on to say that in making their recommendations they had in mind the possibility of legislation defining maximum hours for assistants. That is to be found in the last sentence of paragraph 11, and they went on to make the very recommendation upon which this Bill is based.
I do not think much comfort can be obtained by my noble friend from that paragraph when it is read in a logical way. I take this view about it. I agree that to protect shop assistants by permitted hours of shop opening is not fully satisfactory, and the next step might be in another direction after this Bill; but I am bound to say that my opinion is that the provision which reduces the permitted hours by one hour, in Clause 1, does add a small amount of additional genuine protection to shop assistants. The question the House has to decide is not whether that is so or not (that was established by the Gowers Committee), but whether the House is being asked to pay too big a price in terms of liberty for shopkeepers and the consumer in granting that additional hour for shop assistants. But to say, as some noble Lords have suggested, that the welfare of shop assistants does not enter into this matter is, as I think, merely to delude oneself. I should very
324
greatly regret to see this clause go out for that reason.
I now proceed to look at some of the more general arguments that have been put. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has to make up his mind whether his Amendment is designed in the interests of shop assistants, to get them a greater bonus, or shopkeepers, to allow them to open all night if they like, or the consuming public. In point of fact it achieves none of those objects. The shop assistants do not want it. Through their organised trade union they have pressed strongly for this Bill and even stronger Amendments. The shopkeepers do not want it, except for certain trades, for which we have made provision between the two Committee stages. The consuming public, as Lord Conesford was constrained to admit, do not want it either, as far as any evidence we have been able to obtain has shown.
It is not correct to say, as Lord Grantchester said, that the Gowers Committee took no evidence. They did, in fact, make a social survey which was carried out on their behalf, and ascertained as a result that at that date, ten years ago, practically everyone would be satisfied with the 7 p.m. closing. But the noble Lord says that that is ten years ago, and things change. I can only say that at the last Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, produced convincing evidence on his own Amendment on that occasion of a fresh social survey, taken in November, 1956—only six months ago—which had precisely the same effect. There was no substantial demand for shops to be open after seven o'clock. Indeed, the social survey was urged by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in support of the earlier closing which he desired, at that stage, of six o'clock. So it does not seem to me that when I said on the previous Committee hearing, that no substantial evidence had been produced of any value which could be obtained from the Amendment, I was over-stating the case. Indeed, every organised body of opinion except one, which has expressed itself at all, has expressed itself strongly in favour of the Bill. I do not think that that is something the House or the Government can properly disregard. On the contrary,

325
it seems to me that in considering legislation of this kind one must take exactly that kind of organised opinion into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said that what we are discussing is whether permitted hours should be part of the criminal law. My Lords, it has been part of the criminal law for the greater part of the time during which I have been alive. The only change introduced in this Bill is to change the hour at which the thing becomes, not a crime, but a summary offence. People sometimes use the words "criminal law" as if some serious sort of indictable offence was in question, but the only difference which is being introduced in this clause is to change the hour at which it is already a summary offence from eight to seven. I cannot myself believe that, by any rational stretch of the logical imagination of my noble friend, it can be fairly stated that the issue before the Committee on this Amendment is whether it should be part of the criminal law or not.
I come back to where I started: the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to those who would reject this Bill altogether. It would, I think, be preferable if it were rejected on a Second Reading or Third Reading debate rather than by a sidewind, through an Amendment of this kind. I, myself, if it were to be rejected, should like to see it argued before another place. I think it would be the greatest pity, from a constitutional point of view, if on a matter which is supported as strongly as this has been supported by the organised trade union movement, the Co-operative Movement, the National Chamber of Trade on the other side, and the numerous bodies enumerated by the noble Viscount on the previous Committee stage, and by the Government of the day, this Committee should pass an Amendment which would wreck the whole purpose of the Bill. I believe that it would perhaps do serious Farm to the position of this House in the future, and I could not conscientiousty advise the Committee to take that step, even if on the merits I were persuaded that the Amendment had substance in it, which I am not. I do not believe that this is a serious infringement of liberty. I do not put it forward under the great oriflamme of a remarkable social advance. I think it is a modest social advance,
326
and I have not yet heard any evidence at all from any opponent of the clause which has convinced me personally that the stand I took on the previous occasion was not fully justified.
4.21 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord who moved this Amendment addresses the Committee, either to press or to withdraw it—I believe it is his intention to press the Amendment—I think your Lordships should know precisely the attitude which we on this side of the House adopt. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, there came into my mind the old tag, "Liberty—what crimes have been committed in thy name!" The only virtue that I found in the noble Lord's speech was that it brought forth from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, I would say with great respect, for the first time a really logical statement of Government thinking behind this Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I did not speak on the Second Reading. I am not supposed to make a Second Reading speech on every Committee Amendment. I have so far appeared only on Committee.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount interjected too quickly. I was going to commend him, because it must have impressed your Lordships. The noble Viscount is quite right. We have to consider things in the distributive trade as they are, not as a theoretical approach would have us believe them to be. There are 2 million insured employees in the distributive trade, including those in the family shop. There are 700,000 only in the multiple and large stores, and in the only union which organises these workers the total membership, as my noble friend has said, is 350,000. What are we going to do with over 1 million unorganised shop workers in this country? They have no union and no effective voice to protect their interests. I agree with the noble Viscount in what he has said. This may be the wrong measure by which to protect wages and conditions of employment in the distributive trade, but it is the only measure we have. In years to come the distributive trade may be better organised than it is to-day. But with the multiplicity of small concerns brought about

327
by a lot of the liberty which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, requires, that is the position in which we find ourselves to-day.
When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who has had a distinguished career in the Law, one thing struck me—that his experience in keeping a shop has not been great. I can assure him, from an experience covering over half my life, that long hours in keeping open retail establishments add to the cost. That is an irrefutable fact. There must be a balance. I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying this, but he made one unfortunate statement: "If a shop assistant cannot find a job in one shop, let him go to another!" That is reminiscent of an ill-starred speech which was once made in your Lordships' House, when the speaker said, "Of course, what we in this country want is a tiny bit of unemployment to discipline the worker."
LORD CONESFORD: I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. What I was pointing out was that in conditions of full employment the shop would certainly have to provide decent conditions, otherwise it would not obtain its labour. That was my point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord did not say that; he may have meant it. But even that is not true. We have found that even in a period of full employment there are pockets of unemployment, because of social conditions and family ties and all those things. Mobility of labour is a wonderful ideal, but it counts not one jot in human nature. So again, like the noble Viscount, I find myself largely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. There are things that we do not like about this Bill. In places it is a wretched thing, and in other places it is good. But on balance, it would be quite wrong in my view to pass this Amendment. If that were done, it would wreck the Bill, and the noble Viscount in charge of it might just as well withdraw it because the rest of the Bill does not make sense. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, for the reasons that I have stated—that the Bill does at least give some protection, although not an ideal form of protection, to over one million shop assistants in this
328
country whom we on this side of the House are not going to see jettisoned, as would the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—if the noble Lord decides to divide the Committee on this Amendment, we shall go into the Division Lobby in support of the Government.
LORD CONESFORD: There is one matter that will certainly affect my own procedure in regard to this Amendment. Did my noble friend Lord Hailsham mean by the concluding words of his speech that, in the event of this Amendment being carried, another place will not have an opportunity of considering this Bill? That seems to me to be a serious statement. If he did mean that, it is clearly wrong to deprive another place of the opportunity should we pass this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As I said, I have not had the opportunity of consulting my right honourable friend, and therefore I can express only a personal opinion. But my own opinion, for what it is worth, is that the passing of this Amendment would be equivalent to a Second Reading rejection, whatever that may mean.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Surely this is a most extreme doctrine. It means that the noble Viscount who is responsible for this Bill is saying that if noble Lords vote according to their opinion on this Amendment, and if their opinions happen to be different from his, he is going to advise the Government that that is equivalent, as he calls it—how the word "equivalent" is justified, I do not know—to a Second Reading rejection, and the Bill will have to be withdrawn and will not go to another place. I cannot help thinking that another place would have something to say about that, if the noble Viscount tried to carry out his threat. After his charming and entertaining speech, I think it is a most misguided line which the noble Viscount is following—to crack the whip over the heads of noble Lords and say, "Vote as I tell you, or I will say that the Bill is wrecked."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount really has no right to say that at all. I was asked a perfectly courteous question by my noble friend. I was

329
particularly anxious not to express an opinion about it, but since the question was put to me directly I thought it courteous to him and to the Committee that I should state my opinion, for what it is worth. My opinion is that to carry the Amendment would be equivalent to a Second Reading rejection. I may be wrong. Each noble Lord must make up his mind for himself. I was asked my opinion and I gave it, without any threat or any desire whatever to coerce noble Lords to act contrary to their opinion in the matter.
To my mind, what would be left of this Bill, if we were to abandon the principle of closing hours, is so little that Her Majesty's Government would really be left only with these alternatives—and I speak subject to consultation with my right honourable friend: we should either have to ask the House to put the clause back again on the Report stage, and your Lordships would then send it to another place with that clause in it; alternatively, we should have to do what we could not ask this House to do—that is, send down a Bill which made no real sense, a Bill without this clause. I may be wrong, and if your Lordships' recommendation is that the Committee should do it, let it be done. But this House should always be careful and jealous and proud of legislation which it sends to another place, and it should be legislation which makes sense, not nonsense. If the noble Lord wishes to recommend the Committee to send to another place the Bill without this clause, then let it be done on his advice and not on mine.
VISCOUNT THURSO: The clause could be put back on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With respect, the noble Viscount is really tying himself up in a frightful manner. He says that the clause could be put back on the Report stage. Since he is accusing me of trying to crack the whip over the Committee, let us see what he is advising should be done. Is he advising the Committee to vote in favour of rejection of this clause on the Committee stage, in order that Her Majesty's Government may put it back on the Report stage? May I have an answer to that question?
VISCOUNT THURSO: If your Lordships are courteous enough to allow me to answer the noble and learned Viscount,
330
my answer is that I want this Amendment carried, and for that reason I shall vote for it. I was criticising the noble and learned Viscount for saying that if we were to carry this Amendment it would be equivalent to a rejection on the Second Reading. Out of his own mouth I judge him. It is not equivalent to such a rejection because, as he says, the clause could perfectly well be put back on Report or Third Reading and if a majority of your Lordships supported the noble Viscount then the Bill could complete its passage through this House in the ordinary way and arrive in another place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My understanding of the matter is totally different from that of the noble Viscount. As I understand the position, a Bill is, in effect, rejected on Second Reading when the principle underlying it is rejected; and to my mind that is what is involved in this Amendment. It is self-deception to pretend that that is not so. I cannot be a party to the course of action which it was suggested this Committee should take, or (as I gather the suggestion now is) Her Majesty's Government should take. It would involve my omitting the clause on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would make or ask the House to put it back on Report or Third Reading. To my mind, that is not in the interests of this House, and as a Member of Her Majesty's Government I think it my duty so to advise the Committee.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I do not think I need say much, but to noble Lords in Opposition I would say that I think they are often out of date, behind the times, restrictive in their outlook and retrograde in their actions—and this is one such occasion. Evidently the noble Viscount does not think that the outcry in the Press has anything to do with public opinion; otherwise he could not say that public opinion had not shown itself against the provisions of this Bill. It is neither appropriate nor reasonable for him to put on an air of injured innocence and even to drag in the Constitution. Who but Her Majesty's Government are responsible for introducing this Bill—not even a "tidying-up measure", with the same hours as are now permissable, but with reduced hours? Injured innocence when they are trying further to restrict the hours permitted at present

331
without the commission of an offence! When Her Majesty's Government do that it is quite ridiculous to talk as the noble and learned Viscount has done.
I will deal with the other point—the question of "wrecking" the Bill. The noble Viscount has made this point and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has also done so. If the noble and learned Viscount feels that, I will make him an offer. Let him increase the hours instead of reducing them, and give us an assurance that more flexibility will be granted by substituting say nine, ten, or eleven for seven—and I will not push this Amendment to a Division.
EARL OF SWINTON: As almost anything is in order in this House, the noble Lord might move from the Liberal Benches a clause to repeal the abolition of slavery.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: On one occasion a noble Lord did introduce slavery into his argument, but I do not think that that is appropriate in 1957. I did not put in an Amendment to increase the number of hours but rather to delete
this clause because I thought that by suggesting a later hour than was proposed by Her Majesty's Government I should destroy the impression I wanted to give—that it was flexibility and not necessarily longer hours that I was trying to achieve by this Amendment. For instance, hours from midday to late at night would be flexibility not permitted under this Bill. Why not? And Her Majesty's Government call it a "tidying-up" measure! Why in such a measure do they cut down the existing hours? If there is any chance of "wrecking" the Bill, then if the noble and learned Viscount will undertake to alter the hours, even if it means limiting the hours during which the shop can remain open, we need not press this Amendment to a Division. But I say that in my view it is vital to give more flexibility in this matter, and if there is no other suggestion for achieving that than the rejection of this clause, then I hope the Committee will reject the clause.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Esher, V.

Colwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Thurso, V.

Elton, L.

Sinha, L.

Grantchester, L. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Waldegrave, E.

Gifford, L.

Glentanar, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Glyn, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Greenhill, L.

Sutherland, D.

Devonport, V.

Haden-Guest, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hawke, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Henderson, L.

Lothian, M.

Goschen, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reading, M.

Hailsham, V.

Jessel, L.

Willingdon, M.

Margesson, V.

Kershaw, L.

Maugham, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Attlee, E.

Mersey, V.

Leconfield, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Tenby, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Mathers, L.

Jowitt, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Milverton, L.

Listowel, E.

Birdwood, L.

Newall, L.

Lucan, E.

Blackford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Morley, E.

Burden, L.

Pakenham, L.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Remnant, L.

Perth, E.

Congleton, L.

Silkin, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Derwent, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dynevor, L.

Teviot, L.

Swinton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power of local authority, in sea-fishing centres and holiday resorts, to permit later evening closing and dispense with observance of early closing days]:
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1) to leave out sub-paragraph (i) and to insert instead:
"(i) a direction that, in such weeks as may be specified in the order, the evening closing requirements shall not have effect in the case of shops situate within the area of the authority or within such part of that area as may be so specified; "
The noble Viscount said: The effect of this Amendment, which again is in the direction of liberalisation, is that a local authority in a holiday resort or a sea-fishing centre will have the power to abolish the evening closing hours during twenty-two weeks in the year. As the clause stands, they can only put the hours back to 8 p.m. during those weeks. Under the present Act, a local authority have power during the season to fix any hour later than the normal closing hour they think fit. This Amendment is moved consequentially upon a discussion we had at an earlier Committee stage upon an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Milverton, who desired to restore the position under the present Act. My noble friend was supported both by my noble friend Lord Derwent and by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. On that occasion, I agreed that a strong case had been made out, but thought that perhaps we had better wait for the matter to be discussed in another place. My right honourable friend has taken soundings of public opinion and he feels that he would be safe in acceding to the wish of noble Lords. Therefore, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert the said new paragraph—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a new Amendment, in that it is not based on previous discussion in your Lordships' House. The effect of this Amendment and No. 8 (I suggest that they should be taken together) is to remove the power of the local authority in a holiday resort
334
to distinguish between different trades in making orders dispensing with evening closing hours and requirements to observe an early closing day. The orders would apply to all shops concerned, without distinction of trade. Admittedly the power to distinguish between different trades makes for flexibility, but at the cost of creating anomalies for many shops where different classes of goods are sold. It is thought that if the law is to be as fair and enforceable as possible, this must be done to reduce the risk of these anomalies. That is what is intended to be done by these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, leave out from ("aforesaid") to ("it") in line 26.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment deals with the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power of local authority to suspend evening closing requirements at Christmastide]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments to Clause 1, which we have already passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 45, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Powers of Secretary of State and local authority to suspend evening closing requirements on special occasions]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Modification, at Christmastide and Easter, of requirements with respect to early closing days]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out Clause 7 and to insert the following new clause in its place:
Dispensation with observance of early closing days at certain seasons
".—(1) It shall not be necessary for a day to be observed as respects a shop as an early closing day—

(a) in any of the three weeks of Christmastide;

(b) in Holy week;

(c) in the week next before Whit week;

(d) in the week next before that in which falls the first Monday in August.

(2) If, in any of the following weeks, namely, Easter week, Whit week, and the week in which falls the first Monday in August, a shop is closed all day on each of the first two weekdays thereof, it shall not, as respects that shop, be necessary for a day to be observed as an early closing day in that week."
The noble Viscount said: In moving this new clause, I would suggest that Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 be considered together. This Amendment meets the views expressed by a number of noble Lords on the existing Clauses 7, 8 and 9. Your Lordships will remember that on Committee stage a number of noble Lords attacked these clauses on one ground or another, and, amongst others on the ground that they were far too complicated for the ordinary man to understand. I said then, in substance, that although I sympathised with that viewpoint, a price would have to be paid for greater simplification, in that enforceability would be weakened in one respect or another. I think that it was the view of the Committee then that that was a price worth paying. This Amendment is the result of my right honourable friend's consideration of our discussion.
Clause 7 in the Bill as introduced merely allowed two early closing days to be dispensed with during the three weeks of Christmastide, which is defined in Clause 63 (1), on condition that the shopkeeper closed on two of the Christmas and New Year holidays. In the previous Committee stage the Government accepted an Amendment, moved by my noble friend, Lord Coleraine, allowing the early closing day to be dispensed with, in addition, in Holy Week, on condition that the shopkeeper closed on Good Friday. Another Amendment was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel,
336
to allow all three early closing days to be dispensed with in the three weeks of Christmastide without imposing the condition that the shopkeeper closed on any of the Christmas and New Year holidays. The Amendment was withdrawn on my undertaking to consider it.
Clause 9 was attacked on all sides of the Committee, on the ground that it was very difficult to understand. Its object at that time was to allow a shopkeeper to change the day of the early closing day either in the week in which a public holiday occurred or in the previous week, provided that he closed his shop on the public holiday. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 were based on the proposition that shopkeepers ought to observe an early closing day in addition to the normal public holiday except during two weeks of the Christmas and New Year shopping rush, and that during other bank holiday periods they should only be allowed to change the day of their early closing day—for instance, if it fell on the Thursday before Good Friday.
My right honourable friend has considered these views and has decided on a slightly different approach to this question. He feels that it would be reasonable to give more latitude as regards the observance of early closing days before all public holidays, and that nowadays there is little point in insisting upon the closing of shops on the public holidays as a condition of dispensing with the preceding early closing days, because, in fact, they always do so close.
Subsection (1) of the new clause accordingly allows the early closing day to be dispensed with in any of the three weeks of Christmastide, in Holy Week and in the weeks before Whitsuntide and the August bank holiday. This removes the need for Clause 9, and Clause 8 also becomes redundant. Subsection (2) of the new clause makes special provision for the custom which, I understand, is observed in Leeds and Bradford, whereby both the Monday and the Tuesday in Easter Week, Whit Week and August bank holiday week are observed as whole holidays, but no separate early closing day is observed. We desire this practice to continue. The new provisions do not affect the right of assistants to weekly half-holidays, but special provision about this is made in the Government Amendments to Clause 37, which we have not yet reached. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7 and insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Compulsory change of early closing day falling on a non-business day]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Voluntary change of early closing day in, or in Week before, week in which non-business days falls]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 9.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Sales for which shops may remain open after 1 p.m. on early closing day]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, leave out "for the sale of goods of that kind".—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Special provisions with respect to the sale of certain refreshments for off-consumption
11.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in section one of this Act or a requirement subsisting by virtue of paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of section four thereof, a shop which is registered under this section may—

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

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

(2) A local authority shall, on the application of the occupier of a shop situate within their area or of a person who proposes to occupy a shop so situate register the shop for the purposes of this section if they are satisfied that it is the applicant's intention that the business carried on or, as the case may
338
be, to be carried on at the shop should consist, as to the whole or a substantial part thereof, in the sale of refreshments to which this section applies at times at which, apart from this section (and without regard to the exception for sales of refreshments for consumption in railway trains, omnibuses, aircraft or workplaces in connection with which canteens are provided for which provision is made by the following provisions of this Act), the shop could not lawfully be open for the sale of refreshments for consumption elsewhere than in the shop.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the beginning down to and including "thereof ". The noble Viscount said: It might be convenient if this Amendment and Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 were grouped together for the purpose of discussion. The first Amendment is the fulfilment by the Government of their promise to my noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, when I said that it was our intention to make an exception in respect of the confectionery trade and that it followed that we thought it proper also to make an exception in respect of the tobacco trade.
The original Amendment related to the sale of sugar confectionery, soft drinks and ice cream. The effect of the Government Amendments now on the Paper is that a shopkeeper who intends to do substantial trade in sweets, tobacco or smokers' requisites after 7 p.m. may have his shop registered by the local authority under the machinery of the Bill as it stands and, having registered his shop, can sell these goods at any time. These Amendments do not deal with soft drinks and ice cream because, being refreshments, these already come within the scope of Clause 11. Whether it will be possible to sell them at any time will depend on whether they are specified in the regulations which the Secretary of State will make under subsection (7) of Clause 11. I am not giving an undertaking, but it is contemplated that they will be so specified.
The Amendments that I am now moving go further than my noble friend went, in that they fix no closing hours for the sale of goods. That, I think, is probably an advantage, and rather than fix a closing hour as late as nine o'clock, with ten on the late night, we thought it would be preferable to fix no closing hour at all. As your Lordships will know, under these provisions a shopkeeper will

339
now apply for registration under Clause 11 (2). The local authority must register the shop if they are satisfied that the shopkeeper intends to do a substantial trade in sweets or the other goods after 7 p.m. The only ground for refusing registration is that they are not satisfied about his intention, and therefore they cannot justifiably refuse registration in the ordinary way. There is an appeal by virtue of subsection (5) of Clause 11, which enables the shopkeeper to appeal to the magistrates' court if the local authority refuse. Once a shopkeeper is registered he can take advantage of the exemption and carry on his trade at any time, and cancellation will take place only if he is not doing a really substantial trade. I hope that in putting down these Amendments we have satisfied my noble friend, because that is our intention. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 2, leave out from the beginning to ("a") in line 3.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: As the noble and learned Viscount has said, this Amendment has been put down as a result of my intervention at an earlier stage. I want to say immediately that I am grateful to the noble Viscount and to the Government for the consideration which, clearly, has been given to this matter. I have a number of points to make on the Amendment, but I do not want anything I say to be taken as implying that I do not greatly appreciate this solid step in what I think is the right direction. I did not comment on Clause 11 at an earlier stage, but now that it is proposed to include confectionery and tobacco within its scope, I feel it is appropriate for me to comment on parts of the clause which are not directly affected by the Amendment. Much of what I say about it will, I feel, apply equally to the sale of refreshments for off-consumption, which were originally the only articles covered by the clause.
First, I should like to refer to subsection (2) which, as I read it, lays down that a shop's sales of refreshments, confectionery and tobacco after 7 o'clock in the evening must represent a substantial part of that shop's business in all goods at all times. I shall be glad to hear whether the noble Viscount agrees that my interpretation of the subsection
340
accords with his. If it does, I must say that I think this will, in practice, be difficult to work. Would it not be better to take the shop's business in refreshments, confectionery and tobacco altogether and relate this to its total sales for all hours, thus confining the registration to a shop whose business was substantially in these items and not one just selling sweets and confectionery, for instance, as a sideline? It would be much simpler to obtain an indication of total business in these products, whereas the records of sales after 7 o'clock in the evening would be difficult or impossible to check.
Then we come to the question of the meaning of the phrase "a substantial part". If the word "substantial" means, as some dictionaries give it, "not negligible", then I think that the Bill ought to say so. I am not suggesting that the word "substantial" should be defined in, for example, terms of percentages, but I feel that some other expression which clearly means "not negligible" would be more appropriate and more consistent with the Government's intentions in this matter. I would point out that in the sales of any business it is the last bit where profit comes, when all the overheads have been covered, so that quite a small loss of turnover can make a substantial difference to the profits.
I understand that it is the normal procedure, in connection with legislation of this sort, for the Home Office to give guidance to local authorities in interpretation and in administration. If the Government consider it essential to retain the use of the word "substantial," I hope that guidance from the Home Office will make it clear that this word is intended to mean "not negligible," or some such phrase. Otherwise, there would not only be the possibility of quite unnecessary restrictions on evening selling, but there could be aggravating differences of interpretation between neighbouring local authorities. Moreover, when guidance is issued to local authorities I trust that it will cover the procedure to be adopted, and that this will be as liberal as possible. It seems to me that the only reasonable thing for a local authority to do would be to register virtually all applicants and to cancel their registration only if it became clear that the shop was not fulfilling these provisions. And if a shop's evening sales are concentrated in

341
only a few weeks of the year—for example, in a small holiday resort—this should certainly not preclude registration. One other small point relates to subsections (5) and (6), which lay down that a shopkeeper has only three weeks in which to give notice of intention to appeal. Could this be a misprint for three months? At any rate, three weeks seems too short a time.
To sum up, I am grateful to the Government for their consideration of this matter, and I know that the confectionery trade shares my gratitude. I should, therefore, like to appeal to the noble Viscount to consider the points I have raised. In particular, I should like to know whether he can give the Committee any assurance regarding the guidance which the Home Office will issue to the local authorities, both as to the meaning of the word "substantial" and as to the way they should set about their task. In practice, so much will depend on this administration. I would conclude, as I began, by thanking the noble Viscount and the Government for their endeavours to meet the point of view of the confectionery and tobacco industries.
LORD DERWENT: I understand from the noble and learned Viscount that he would like me to talk now about my Amendment to the Government Amendment No. 16.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes.
LORD DERWENT: The point about my Amendment to the Government Amendment is this. The Government list of exemptions refers to
"the sale of sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, tobacco or smokers' requisites".
That was originally settled in the first Shops Act, which I think I am right in saying was passed in 1912. It was repeated in 1928, again in 1936 and again in 1950. My Amendment seeks to put into this list mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks and ice cream, with or without edible containers. Since the list was drawn up in 1912, the method of selling these things has entirely altered, and almost without exception now confectionery shops, which also frequently sell tobacco, almost invariably sell mineral waters, other non-alcoholic drinks and ice cream.
I cannot agree with the noble Viscount, if I understood him aright, that this matter
342
should be left to a schedule under an order to be made by the Minister. If this schedule made by the Minister does not include ice cream and mineral waters, we shall see the position that is causing so much trouble under the 1950 Act. We shall find that confectionery, and so on, may be sold, yet in the same shop—they are often small shops—the sale of mineral waters and ice cream, which are a normal part of the trade, will not, in certain circumstances, be permitted. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will accept this Amendment. It is only a matter of common sense, and does nobody any harm. These two things are normally sold with the others in the same type of shop, therefore this matter ought to be part of the Bill and should not be left to an order of the Minister.
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in his remarks.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would the noble Viscount like me to proceed?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thought I might answer all noble Lords, instead of making two speeches.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I listened gratefully to the concessions made to the Committee by the noble Viscount, but I cannot join in these jollifications. I think it is a mistake in dealing with the proper situation. After all, the effect of the Amendment is to permit the sale of tobacco, smokers' requisites and sugar confectionery up to any time in the evening, provided that the shop is registered with the local authority. A condition of registration is that the sale of these commodities should represent a substantial part of the business carried on.
Before I speak in more generality against the proposal in the noble Viscount's Amendment, I must say that to me it seems a little abstruse. I do not know what is to be represented to the local council as "a substantial part of the business carried on." Will the co-operative society which is having a jollification evening of its shareholder members now be permitted to sell not only ice cream but the other things mentioned in the schedule? If the society was doing a general business of £5 million a year, and these sales represented only £100 for

343
the night, would that be reckoned to be "a substantial part of the business"?—because the business is all one. I am not quite sure what is to be the basis of settling this "substantial part of the business". That is by the way. I should like to hear the legal view of the noble Viscount on that.
With regard to the general question, I must say that the present Act either fixes directly or authorises the fixing of the maximum permitted hours of closing, even although later than the general hours. The Amendment lays down no ceiling at all. Is it intended by the noble Viscount, or the Minister who is behind the Bill, that a local authority will be instructed in some way to have a limited time, or can they give a licence without any limit of time whatsoever? That would seem to me to be totally unreasonable. I rather gathered that the noble Viscount has "beaten the pistol" (I am sure he did not do so intentionally) on this particular issue—that is, in relation to the trade conference which is to be held this week. I think that the trade conference is likely to suggest a maximum closing time of about 8.30 p.m. I cannot go further than that because I am not absolutely certain. The side of the National Chamber of Trade which is connected with this side of the business will probably be pressed, at any rate, in the conference to deal with the matter in that way.
When the original Amendment was moved by Lord Mackintosh of Halifax on February 12 to provide for the sale of sugar confectionery, it provided that shops selling sugar confectionery should be permitted to keep open two hours later than the general closing time. Does the noble Lord really want this complete absence of a "ceiling" as will be the case under the Government Amendment, or was he certain that he was going to get all he wanted by the extra two hours? What is the reason why this Government Amendment goes so far beyond the request of the noble Lord? I am rather at a loss to understand this position. I think your Lordships must have gathered—at least I did—from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that if this exception with regard to the sale of sweets and tobacco from general hours is accepted, it opens a wide door to other transactions, which will complicate enforcement. I think it
344
is quite reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to come along and ask for these matters to be considered. I am quite sure he does it on an absolutely bona fide basis, and many other traders will be absolutely bona fide; they will obey the law, whatever the law is. But when it comes to having the shops open without a "ceiling" at all, unless some instruction is to be given to the local authority in issuing the licences, then it seems to me there will be all kinds of "under the counter" trade in the other commodities.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. The point I raised about these two commodities is that it is not a question of extending the things that may be sold, but that they are the normal things sold in confectionery shops.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am quite aware of that, but the same question arises, as we know, in the chemists and druggists. We argued that before, on previous stages of the Bill. You can make arrangements for Sunday trading for the chemist and druggist, and once you have made it absolutely general there are all kinds of things added to the list that should never be added for Sunday trading. If we are to have this Amendment with regard to the sugar confectionery and tobacco trades, then I am quite certain that the noble Lord is right that many people who are selling them will add at least six, eight or ten other regular attributes to their trade, which they will also want covered. If they are not covered, then, leaving out the conscientious traders who will obey the law, whatever it is, the others will be doing an "under the counter" business. Once a law is brought into disrepute, it becomes bad law. It is better, therefore, to have a good law at the beginning and for shop keepers to know things beyond peradventure: first, what time they have to close, and secondly, what are the commodities that may be sold? Without these two considerations, it is impossible to get enforcement. That is the problem, and if the law is not enforceable it is not worth anything at all—in fact, it does real harm.
I am sure the noble Viscount will remember that this question of enforcement was one of the matters carefully examined again and again by the Gowers

345
Committee; and it led the Gowers Committee, after full consultation with the tobacco and sugar confectionery trades, to come down unanimously in favour of a general closing hour of 7 o'clock with one late night at 8 o'clock, which would apply to these trades as to others. If any slight Amendment is required to that (I do not think there is; I am all in favour of the shorter hours), then I should have thought that a local authority might be authorised to license such shops in the vicinity of cinemas, or cinemas and theatres themselves, to sell up to 8.30. That would enable them to cover the normal times of the two houses a night, which is usually the maximum of that kind of entertainment, and in that way most of the situation would be met.
The aim of the Gowers Committee was to reduce as much as possible the area of exemptions from the general closing hours they recommended, and to confine exemptions to transactions concerning foods, refreshments and meals. It was this principle which went a long way towards influencing the Committee in favour of 7 o'clock as the general closing hour, rather than an earlier time. In view of what I call the adequate defence of the general principle of the Bill that the noble Viscount made on a previous Amendment to-day, I do not want to delay this Bill, but I want him to know that there will be strong views expressed in another place about this particular Amendment which he is conceding. So, although I have put the case here not very briefly—I do not propose to say more—I should not propose to divide the Committee on the Amendment here; but I think it was necessary for me to say what I have said in order to draw necessary attention to the point when it goes to another place.
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not suppose anyone will quarrel with the noble Viscount for putting his point of view. It only goes to show how difficult it is to please everybody. My personal feeling is very much in favour of this Amendment. After all, we have to take account of public opinion, and there was no doubt in the mind of the Government or in my mind—because I was the recipient of most of the criticisms at that time—that there was a very general feeling in the
346
sweet and tobacco trade that this restriction would impose a serious hardship on them, because, as I explained in answer to my noble friend in the previous debate, the sweet and tobacco trade is an impulse trade—that is to say, the total turnover of the business would be affected. People who find a sweet shop shut at night do not buy sweets the next morning at breakfast time; they do not buy them at all. Nobody thinks of buying a pot of marma-lade at nine o'clock at night; and when people see boots in a shop window at nine o'clock at night, they do not have an impulse to buy boots which they would not buy anyhow. But shops selling sweets and tobacco are in a different position from ordinary shops. That is the basis of this Amendment—that and the public opinion which exists.
This is an Amendment designed to help the small shopkeeper; therefore I did not imagine that it would be held in much favour by the representative of the great co-operatives. It was not intended to be in favour of the great co-operatives; it is in favour of the shopkeeper, who might suffer if it were not passed. If we are going to say it at all, should we not say it the right way? I think the noble Viscount opposite is under a delusion when he thinks that the local authority is going to license the shops. It is not going to license the shops; it is going to register them. When they are registered, they will be open at all hours if they wish to be.
The question which then arises is: what is the qualification for registration? That point was raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, and the noble Viscount opposite. It is a very difficult point for a Minister to make, especially when he is a Minister with legal qualifications, because we are simply never believed when we say that there is a strong distinction between questions of fact and questions of law. Lawyers cannot give adequate definitions of things which are questions of fact or opinion; they can only give legal opinion on things which are questions of law. What is a substantial part of a trade is a question of fact, not a question of law. With great respect to my noble friend on the Cross Benches, I myself do not find "not negligible" any more intelligible than "substantial", because it raises the question of what can be neglected or not,

347
whereas "substantial" raises the question of what is a substantial part. In our dictionaries these terms are treated as synonymous. I will not venture to offer to the noble Viscount opposite legal advice on his conundrum, although it struck me on the facts, and in the form in which he presented them, that they did not form part of the retail trade at all; that the jollification was something outside. I am probably wrong about it, so perhaps he would be wise not to follow that advice.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would the noble Viscount answer this point as a question of fact? I am anxious not to get him on the wrong foot. If, in fact, it is the purpose of an organisation to supply all the needs of its members—all of them, everything from the cradle to the grave, including refreshments and entertainments—is the supply of refreshments a "substantial" part of the business?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would not say it was not a substantial business. I gather that these jollifications are very substantial needs. The only question I ventured to raise was whether or not it was a retail sale. I am not sure that it is made a retail sale by being substantial. I should have thought that the noble Viscount's jollifications might be subject to special legal opinion and would have to be considered.
My noble friend Lord Derwent is proposing an Amendment to my Amendment. I propose to accept that, with some misgivings, because I, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in this particular case, and only in this case, have a predilection for using regulations, because they can be amended if they are wrong. But, on balance, my right honourable friend and I both think that this Amendment can be written into the Bill without very great disadvantage. I am glad to be able to make a concession, which shows that we are always prepared to listen to arguments, within reason. Therefore, when the noble Lord conies to move his Amendment, which he has not yet done, I will, with the permission of the Committee, accept it. I do not think I have anything more to say.
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: The noble Viscount has not mentioned the question of guidance.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry; I overlooked the noble Lord's point. I think I shall have to write to him about it. I am not sure whether it is customary to give guidance in such matters. If my right honourable friend did give guidance, he would not, as my noble friend knows, be in any position whatever to influence the court by such guidance; therefore it would be without any legal effect at all and might even be misleading. But it may be that in administrative matters of this kind it is the custom, and, if it is, I know that my right honourable friend will bear in mind what my noble friend has said.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before this Amendment is put, could the noble Viscount tell me this? I quite see his dilemma upon what is "substantial." A turnover of £10 a week in a total turnover of £100 a week I would say would be substantial; but £10 a week in a total turnover of £10,000 a week would not be quite so substantial. I think he is going to have difficulty, but it will be got over if he will answer me this question. Can all shops that exist to-day and which do this type of trade apply to be registered automatically—that, I think, is a very important point—or are you going to use this registration to weed them out? Are you going to say that, from the date of this Bill, all those who are doing a business of the type described in the clause will be automatically registered?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Anybody who wants to be registered has to apply to be registered. In that sense it is not automatic, but the registration cannot be refused except on the ground that substantial business is not intended or is not being carried on. We do not intend to weed anybody out. But, if I may put it bluntly and plainly, this is a Bill to restrict hours of opening of shops. That will include, for instance, boot shops. I do not think that a boot shop ought to be allowed to stay open till any hour by selling a few sweets on the off moment and then having itself registered under this provision. That would lead to abuse. I take an extreme case because extreme cases are the best way of illustrating legal principles. They also happen to be the most amusing way of doing it. The object is, therefore, to allow local authorities, in the first place, and magistrates, if the shopkeeper is aggrieved, to apply their

349
ordinary common sense to the matter. If you propose, for example, a colourable attempt to get round the Act, it will not be allowed; but if it is a genuine trade which is genuinely making a profit, I do not think there will be any difficulty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are on an important point here, because the applicant for registration has an appeal if the local authority refuses the registration. The court of appeal is the magistrate, one of the fraternity about which the noble Viscount has just been commenting. The magistrate has to find an interpretation of "substantial". How will he arrive at the legal definition of what is "substantial" in the context of this Bill? Does the noble Viscount, with all respect to his profession, think the magistrate is the best person to preside over the appeal? Does he not think that perhaps the local authority, the Shops Act inspector or someone like that, would be better? Somebody has to decide what is substantial. In the last analysis it appears to be the magistrate. Is there any appeal against the decision of the magistrate? If so, who then is going to decide what is substantial? I am afraid the noble Viscount, if I may use an Americanism, has "got to come clean" at some time, arid somebody must decide the correct definition of "substantial".
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have had this point again and again on other occasions, and I am not "going to come clean" at any time if by "coming clean" the noble Lord means attempting the impossible. He is, of course, quite wrong in supposing that the magistrate is ordinarily a lawyer. I am upset that the noble Lord in the Chair should be in the Chair when this concept is being advanced; he is the chairman of the Magistrates' Association. In fact magistrates are seldom lawyers, except in benighted places like the metropolis where the work is so intense that we must have a lawyer to stand up to it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The magistrate has to take the opinion of a lawyer—the clerk.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will tell the noble Lord what the clerk will tell the magistrate. He will tell the magistrate it is a fact; the word is used in the ordinary sense in the English language, and the magistrate is entitled to apply his
350
common sense and make a decision. That is what the clerk will tell the magistrate.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think there is a great deal in what the noble Viscount has just said. What we really want to get at is the drafting of legislation which can be more easily interpreted. The question is about the use of this sort of qualifying adjective from time to time. Sometimes it is "reasonable" sometimes it is "not negligible". I agree with the noble Lord that "not negligible" is not very much better than "substantial". It would be a great service on the part of the noble Viscount, as a lawyer, if he could address himself to seeing how art explanatory phrase rather than a single qualifying adjective might be used to give a clearer interpretation. I would invite him to look at one of the Reports of the Standing Committee on Trusts, in which the late John Hilton told the story about painters who were painting a public-house. The publican, who was not a rich man, wanted to give them something for their trouble, and he gave them some of the worst beer—what is called "drawings off". When he went to see the men he asked them if they had had their drink and enjoyed it. They were rather gloomy, and he asked them what was the matter with the beer. The spokesman for the men said: "If you want our real opinion, if it had been any worse we could not have drunk it, and if it had been any better we know we should not have got it, so we thought it was reasonable." That is a very long process to get behind qualifying adjectives. It was on that basis that the Standing Committee on Trusts and Prices very often would not proceed to legislation until they found proper language to use. Let that be a study and let our laws be in better English.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have dealt with this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 5, leave out from (" time ") to end of line 8 and insert

" (i) for the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in the shop, of refreshments to which this section applies, other than fried fish or fried potato chips;

(ii) for the sale of sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, tobacco, or smokers' requisites; ".—(Viscount Hailsham.)

LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for saying that he will accept my series of Amendments, and particularly the Amendment to his Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out paragraph (ii) and insert—
" (ii) for the sale of mineral waters and other non-intoxicating drinks; sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery; ice cream (with or without edible containers); tobacco and smokers' requisites; ".—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, leave out from ("of") to end of line 27 and insert ("goods such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section at times at which, apart from this section (and without regard to any exceptions for transactions for which provision is made by the following provisions of this Act) the shop could not lawfully be open for their sale").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 31, leave out (" refreshments to which this section applies ") and insert (" goods such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section ").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, after ("registration") insert ("under this section").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Restriction on carrying on on weekdays, of retail trade or business otherwise than in shops]:
5.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is, in a sense, consequential. It carries through to Clause 12 the Amendment to Clause 11, which we have just been discussing, thereby providing for the sale of sugar, confectionery, tobacco and smokers' requisites, with the additions which my noble friend Lord Derwent suggested to the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, at end insert (" or in the selling of sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, tobacco or smokers' requisites;")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Clause 12, as I understand it, deals with carrying on on weekdays of retail trade otherwise than in shops. Am I to understand by this Amendment that the ice cream barrow and cycles (if Amendment No. 21 is accepted) can perambulate the streets at any hour of the day or night, that a man can sell sweets away from a sweet shop if he can get a licence so to do? The shop has a licence, so the representative of the shop, I take it, can go out and sell sweets other than from the shop; because the noble Viscount's Amendment to Clause 11 means that if the shop is registered it may sell at any hour. Does it mean that the representative of the shop can sell at any time under Clause 12? If he cannot he will be able to, I take it, by this Amendment of the noble Viscount. Would he mind telling me whether I am right or wrong.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not quite follow what the noble Lord is trying to say. Clause 12 is a restriction on the carrying on, on weekdays, of retail trade or business otherwise than in shops. The Amendment I am moving, which is No. 20 in my list, is Clause 12, page 10, line 38, at end to insert the words printed. That is the one we are both on, is it?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The effect of that is that the items mentioned will be excepted from the operation of subsection (1) of the clause which deals with the prohibition on retail trade, otherwise than in shops, at hours which would not be permitted if they were a shop, the trade or business consisting in the selling of articles which include the ones which I am now adding. The effect of that, as I understand it, is that anybody may sell those goods day or night.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Away from the shop.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Anybody to whom the clause applies—that is, a person who carries on a business of selling goods away from the shop—can do so. I think that is correct.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Otherwise than in the shop?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Otherwise than in the shop. I think that is right. But I did not quite agree with what was said about a licence, because, as I pointed out, there is no question of a licence.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I meant registration.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know what is the correct procedure now. I am moving Amendment No. 20, and my noble friend Lord Derwent is to move, as an alternative, his Amendment, No. 21, which I propose to accept.
LORD DERWENT: The other one was put down as "an Amendment to the above Amendment." This is put down as a separate Amendment. Might I suggest that Amendment No. 20 be not agreed to?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think that if my noble friend moves Amendment No. 21, I do not need my Amendment, because my noble friend includes my sweets in his Amendment. So I will not persist in my Amendment No. 20. I will withdraw it, and perhaps he will move instead Amendment No. 21.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, at end insert ("or in the selling of mineral waters and other non-intoxicating drinks; sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery; ice cream (with or without edible containers); tobacco and smokers' requisites;").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) trade or business consisting in the selling of mechanically propelled vehicles, caravans and trailers;".
The noble Lord said: On the previous stage of this Bill I raised the question, which the noble Viscount kindly said he would look into, of the dilemma and anomaly in which the motor trade will be placed in conforming to this clause. This clause says that one cannot engage in the retail selling of any article away from
354
a retail shop if the provisions of the Bill compel the closing of that shop at a certain hour—either 7 o'clock or, on the late night, 8 o'clock. Therefore one cannot sell a motor vehicle, a trailer or anything like that after 7 o'clock at night, or after the hour which is set down for the closing of a retail shop.
I suggest that in the case of motor vehicles it is absolutely impossible, and it would be wrong to attempt, to enforce that provision. Motor vehicles to-day, except in the heart of the West End of London, are seldom sold on showroom floors. Generally, they are sold outside the house of the prospective customer. What happens is that the salesman leaves the retail shop at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and at 7 o'clock, when the shop has to close, he is ensconsed in the prospective purchaser's house, busily getting an order for a motor car. What does he do? Does he walk out then to conform with the law? If the noble Viscount thinks he is going to do that, he is not a good judge of human nature. This goes on every day of the year.
First of all, as I say, it is impossible to enforce this provision, and secondly, it is wrong to attempt to enforce it. I do not at all object to the shop itself having to close at 7 or 8 o'clock, as the case may be. The noble Viscount has accepted my argument in a later Amendment, in that the half-day provision does not apply to the selling of motor vehicles. I maintain that it is equally ridiculous to try to stop the ordinary process of trade in this particular case in this way. Taking the rural districts, I suppose I should not be far wrong if I said that 50 to 60 per cent. of those engaged in the selling of motor vehicles in the rural districts are self-employed persons. How can one stop the village garage proprietor after 7 o'clock, when he may not sell motor cars from his establishment, engaging in selling motor cars if his customers want to talk business with him in the evening in their own private houses? I am sure the noble Viscount does not want to stop that. He does not want the law to look foolish by attempting to stop it. The difficulty is that motor car showrooms are rarely retail selling establishments; they are display spaces. A motor car showroom even in the West End of London, is not much different from a kiosk in the hall of an hotel. All the real

355
business in the selling of motor vehicles is done away from the premises. They do not sell commercial vehicles inside a showroom. A commercial vehicle is sold through doing the job that the commercial vehicle has to do—on the route that the man who is going to buy it wants it to travel.
The next dilemma which the noble Viscount will be up against is that of wholesale sales. The wholesale salesman can do all the things I am talking about, because wholesale selling is not covered by the Bill. There is no real definition in this Bill of what is a retail sale, nor is there such a definition in the Act of 1950. In quite 75 per cent. of the establishments—I suppose there are 30,000 in this country—the man who sells retail sells wholesale. If a man leaves the shop or showroom in a motor car to sell wholesale, he is quite at liberty to do so; but if the next day he is engaged on selling retail, he is not at liberty to do so. Would it not be far better to accept my Amendment, so that the law can be reasonably well kept by applying it only to the particular establishment?
May I put this question to the noble Viscount?—this is one reason why I asked him about the previous Amendment which he himself proposed. A man can now sell sweets and chocolates away from the premises. I can have a small motor car fitted up as a sweetstall, and I can sell sweets away from the premises after closing time; and I can sell ice cream. But I cannot sell a motor car, which is far more saleable away from the premises than a bar of chocolate is. That is one anomaly that this Bill creates, and one which it need not create. So I hope that the noble Viscount will accept my Amendment.
If I may say so, with respect, it does not make sense not to accept it, for this provision can never be enforced. One cannot police every salesman in this country to see that he does not engage in selling a motor vehicle, caravan or trailer when the shop or showroom premises from which he operates closes at seven o'clock. Every substantial firm in this country supplies its sales staff with a motor car, and those salesmen are allowed to use those motor cars not only on the firm's business but for their private business. That is an accepted
356
practice, and in the summer months those men sell more motor cars after the showroom from which they operate is closed than they do during the day, for that is the time when people have the leisure to consider their purchase. Those who are engaged in business during the day are happy to discuss the purchase of a motor vehicle in the evening, when they have not to attend to their own business.
How then can we bring in legislation like this to say that that is illegal? To do that would be to stop 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the trade of the country, because when one sells a motor car one has to suit the convenience of the buyer; and it is to the convenience of a buyer for himself and his wife to be able calmly to take a run of thirty, forty or fifty miles by way of demonstration. That cannot happen while the wife is busy with her housework or the man is busy with his business. Such runs take place in the evening. I could elaborate this, but there is this anomaly between the wholesale and the retail salesman—that a motor car can be sold to a trader after hours but cannot be sold after hours to the man who lives next door. I should think that that is proof enough that my Amendment is only logical. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, at end insert—
("(b) trade or business consisting in the selling of mechanically propelled vehicles, caravans and trailers;").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
5.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must say that this is the kind of Amendment and speech which makes me weary of well-doing. On the earlier committee stage the noble Lord moved an Amendment the purpose of which was to permit the sale of motor cars on early closing day. That is what the noble Lord moved. He got me to draft his Amendment for him, because his would not have done; and in fact I have accepted the principle, and it appears, at a later stage, on the Second Schedule, as an accepted Government Amendment. The noble Lord now proceeds to move this Amendment, full of fresh criticism of the Bill, which would have the effect of allowing the sale of motor cars, caravans and trailers to take place otherwise than in shops at any time, while their sale in shops, including

357
garages, would not be allowed after the general evening closing hours on weekdays or at any time on Sundays. That is the effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, as a result of my having accepted, I thought kindly, his earlier Amendment—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble and learned Viscount is being less than fair. I raised this issue on the previous stage, and I said that I should raise it again. It is a different issue from the one he has mentioned. The first mutter he mentioned is that the shop itself should keep open on early closing day; this is different. It is not a question of allowing a shop to keep open but of prohibiting a salesman from earning his living at the best time for him to earn it—when other people are not working.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Unfortunately, the noble Lord did not allow me to finish my sentence, and therefore I was not able to complete my argument. I was saying, and I say again, that the Amendment previously moved was to allow the sale of motor cars on early closing days, whether in a garage, a shop or on a golf course. That has been accepted in the phraseology of Her Majesty's Government, and the noble Lord is now proposing an Amendment which would have the effect of permitting the sale of cars, caravans and trailers otherwise than in shops at any time, while sales in shops, including garages, would still not be allowed after the general evening closing hours on weekdays or at any time on Sundays. This would be an absurd anomaly and contrary to the whole principle adopted in the Bill, that any restrictions on sales should apply equally to shops and other places. That is what is now being sought. It may be that casual deals in motor cars do take place on golf courses or over dinner tables, and it is quite arguable that that should be allowed at any time. While it is no part of my business to give advice to the courts, I am advised that such occasional transactions are not to be regarded as carrying on a retail trade, and therefore are not prohibited by Clause 12. Circumstances alter cases, of course, and it may he that a person who habitually did deals on golf courses might he held to be carrying on retail trade—I do not know. But it can be said that in these matters the Bill does not alter the existing
358
law, and there is not the smallest reason to suppose that any more difficulty will be experienced under the Bill than under the Act which is at present in force.
On the last occasion the noble Lord said categorically that he did not want to allow "used car" parks to do business on Sundays. I do not know whether he now wants this and yet does not want garages to be able to sell cars on Sundays, but Her Majesty's Government, at any rate, could not be party to such an unfair and anomalous distinction. Trade on Sundays and after the weekday evening closing hour must either be prohibited generally or be allowed generally. I do not think it has occurred to the noble Lord that trial runs and things of that kind are not necessarily retail business at all. Though I cannot claim the noble Lord's experience of selling motor cars, I can claim a fairly extensive experience of buying them, new and secondhand, since I have owned motor cars since I was seventeen, and I have never yet concluded a transaction after 7 o'clock at night, although I dare say that I have been on a number of trial runs after that hour. It surprises me to know that, in order to do justice to motor car salesmen, it is necessary to create a situation whereby the sale of motor cars can take place outside a shop at any time but can take place inside the shop only during the permitted hours. That seems to me an absurd situation. I must tell the noble Lord frankly that after going to some trouble to satisfy him, as I thought, on a previous occasion, I am a little discouraged to find myself faced with fresh criticism of the Bill and with a fresh series of dilemmas alleged to face me in defending what seems to me to be a perfectly logical position against an absurdly anomalous one.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I can only say that the noble and learned Viscount is easily discouraged, for if he will be just he will recall that I argued the one and then the other. Though I have not Hansard with me, I believe the noble and learned Viscount's words were that there was a case for taking the motor car trade out of this particular clause of the Bill; and with that I sat down, thinking that the noble and learned Viscount was going to frame an Amendment in both respects. He has done it in only one respect. I thought I was

359
plain and clear. The noble Lord gets a note in front of him and answers questions and points which I did not raise. I do not want car parks and parking lots at Chelsea to be open on Sunday, or at any other time. I do not want any motor car sales point opened at any time other than that which is contained in this Bill—that is, up to 7 o'clock on a normal day, 8 o'clock on one day of the week, and not at all on Sunday; but I want the noble and learned Viscount to face the realities of the situation.
There are in this House noble Lords with just as much knowledge of this subject as I have of the fact that the selling of motor cars in this country is largely done at places away from the point at which the establishment is sited; and the salesman makes his sales at hours when other people have finished their work. That is all right if he engages in wholesale business, but he is not allowed to do it if he is in retail business. I say that that is an absurd anomaly. The noble Viscount then says he is advised that nothing will be altered by this Bill that is the practice to-day. I am advised that to-day it is technically illegal to engage in retail business—that is, selling an article to a private purchaser—away from premises after the statutory closing hour. All that sort of thing that goes on to-day is illegal.
Lord Mancroft, on the Second Reading of the Bill, characterised the 1950 Act as a "farrago of nonsense". I am trying my best to see that this Bill is a bit better. If the practice to which I have referred was illegal under the 1950 Act, there is nothing in this Bill to make it legal. I am trying to make it so. I am only trying to help the noble Viscount, because I can assure him that the law will not be enforced in the future any more than it has been enforced in the past. Does he want his Bill to read sense in this regard, or does he not? If the assurance which he has just read out from his advisers, that nothing will happen in the future that has not happened in the past, may be taken as a Government pronouncement, all right. That will be a defence against any prosecution in the future, I suppose.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord will be wrong.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It will be wrong! That is why I am trying to put this right. It is no good the noble Viscount accusing me of doing this, that and the other. I understood that the noble Viscount's assurance on the previous Committee stage was that he would clear up these two points—one, that it was against the public interest for motor car showrooms to close on early closing days, because the staff would simply move; and, two, that it was illegal at the present time to sell motor cars away from the seller's premises outside statutory hours. All I am asking the noble Viscount is: will he exempt this trade? He has exempted chocolate and ice-cream. Here is something which it is also desirable to exempt. If the noble Viscount does not want to do it, all right. His Bill can be a farce in this respect, as the law has been since 1950. If he is content with that, then I also am content. But I did not think that he would be content.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Offences under Part I]:
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, leave out from ("Act") to ("the") in line 24.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 33, leave out ("or such a requirement as aforesaid").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, leave out ("of any kind").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "female".
The noble Lord said: May I speak on this Amendment and No. 27A together—

361
they are really part of the same matter? After the argument which we have had on Clause 12, I think the noble Viscount will understand why I did not praise the liberalisation he mentioned under certain clauses of this Bill. They are not general concessions at all, but particular concessions. Sweets, ice cream and confectionery have been exempted. Lord Lucas of Chilworth is indignant because he cannot get motor cars, caravans and trailers excluded. All his arguments on the previous Amendment would apply, I think, to pictures or hats, or almost anything else. The Amendment which I am now moving is put forward at the instigation of the Federation of Hairdressers who paint a gloomy picture of having to put on the street, with their hair still wet, a number of ladies who were in the shop and who had their permanent waves started before the closing hour. Being allowed only one hour to finish, when the process takes three hours, the hairdressers are afraid that there will be a good deal of trouble from the ladies who have to be put into the street with waves unfinished and their hair wet. Perhaps the concession for which I am asking is one of the particular concessions which the noble Viscount might accept, since he is confining himself to concessions in particular cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, leave out ("female").—(Lord Grantchester.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am bound to say that to my advisers both the noble Lord's Amendments were something of an enigma; therefore I am not altogether prepared to give a final ruling on the principle underlying them, though I am bound to tell the noble Lord that they cannot be accepted in their present form. The first Amendment would omit the word "female"—
LORD GRANTCHESTER: Perhaps I may explain. I assumed that male customers came under paragraph (a) and were allowed half an hour in which their hair-cut or shave could be finished. The hairdresser might be able to finish one in process of being served, but there might be two or three people waiting; and in such a case half an hour would be too short a time. In the ladies' department it would be worse: if a permanent wave had not long been started, it could not be finished within an hour.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I still do not understand the purpose of this Amendment. It is true that in the case of a male customer a barber at these shops is allowed half an hour's grace. I am not sure that an hour is much better to do the longer job to which the noble Lord refers.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I wanted the time limit cut out altogether.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Doing the "short back and sides" business may not be a long process, but I am wondering how much longer the barber's assistant would be made to wait as a result of the noble Lord's Amendment. I do not see the purpose of omitting the word "female". Women's hair does take longer than men's hair to deal with. That is the purpose of the distinction in this matter. The second Amendment—which is at Page 12, line 2 to leave out from "kind" to the end of line 4, we cannot make head nor tail of.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: It should be line 3—not line 4.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The only effect, as we see it, is to leave out the substantive clause containing the main verb of the sentence, and the effect would be meaningless. Neither I nor my advisers could understand the purpose of the second Amendment.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: The intention was to enable a hairdressing establishment to finish off customers who were in the shop at the prescribed closing hour. That is to say, if two or three people were waiting the hairdresser could deal with those customers and would not be restricted to half an hour, in the case of men, and to one hour, in the case of women.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I still do not understand how that is achieved by leaving out the main verb, but I was going to say that as the real purpose of the Amendment has now been elucidated by means of question and answer, I shall take an opportunity of consulting the experts with whom I have been dealing on this matter, and perhaps the noble Lord would not press his Amendment now. Obviously it will not do, and I will consider the matter before Report stage and see what we can make of it.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: May I send the noble Viscount the memorandum which I have received from the National Hairdressers' Federation? I think that he will be able to make an adjustment which will satisfy the purpose of my Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: At any rate, it will be considered, as I have tried to consider everything put forward. I am only sorry that the form in which this Amendment was cast did not enable me to consider it before.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 46, leave out ("or such a requirement as aforesaid").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is again consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 1, leave out ("for the purpose of effecting transactions of that kind").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Extent of Part II]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill:
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: On the previous Committee stage, after debate, we withdrew the Amendment to leave out this clause, and I have not put it down again, but I do not want the noble Viscount to be under any misapprehension about what is in my mind concerning it. I am hoping that the deletion of the clause will be moved in another place, when the Bill gets there. I do not want to make another speech on it to-night. Our objection remains.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think that I am under any illusion as to what may happen in another place.
On Question, Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Sunday closing of shops
18.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act and to the provisions of any order relating to Sunday trading in London which is continued in force under this part of this Act, every shop shall be closed on Sunday:
Provided that—

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

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

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out from "evening" to end of line 34. The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment and Amendment No. 30 is to bring the Sunday closing hour provisions into line with Clause 1, as altered by the Amendments which we discussed earlier—that is to say, the local option is removed. The noble Viscount opposite made an effective attack on this change in Clause 1, which was overcome after a struggle. I am not sure that any purpose is served by renewing the battle on this Amendment, because probably the noble Viscount would agree that the same sort of argument would apply to both and that it would not be desirable to draw a distinction between the two sets of provisions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, leave out from "evening" to end of line 34.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I ant sure of this: that no good purpose will be served by debating this question at length. But I am also sure that people attached to churches and who support the Lord's Day Observance Society will certainly not be in favour of this series of Amendments to Clause 18 which extend greatly the special licence for Sunday trading. I do not want it to be understood that I have removed my objection to it at all. I object now on another basis. I object to the removal of this matter from the ambit of the local

365
authority, and I object on the basis that it will be a further extension of shops hours on Sunday.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must say that that is simply not the case. The effect of this provision, unless I am mistaken, is not to extend hours. What it does is to reduce hours, but to remove from the local authority the power of reducing them still further. That is the effect of the general legislation, and this clause simply puts into effect in relation to Sunday what we have already decided in relation to other provisions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether the convenient course would be for my noble friend Lord Derwent, who has an Amendment on the Order Paper amending the one I am about to move, to move his first, but, if I may, I would explain shortly the purpose of my Amendment as amended by that of my noble friend. The purpose is to carry through to Sundays the Government's previous Amendments making provision for the sale of tobacco and confectionery after the general evening closing hour. I understand the position of the noble Viscount opposite, which he has made plain in relation to Amendment No. 28. I do not wish in any way to prejudice the position, but I should have thought that it was consequential, in a substantial sense, on what we have already done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, leave out from ("time") to end of line 41 and insert—

("(i) for the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in the shop, of articles of food or drink specified or described by regulations having effect by virtue of that section;

(ii) for the sale of sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, tobacco or smokers' requisites.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)

LORD DERWENT: I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out paragraph (ii) and insert—
("(ii) the sale of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice cream (with or without edible containers), tobacco or smokers' requisites."—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I accept my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment, agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment deals with the same point as that raised on No. 28. We are bringing the Sunday closing hour provisions into line with the Amendments made to Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 42, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Exception for sale of food on Sundays at registered food shops]:
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to leave out Clause 19. The noble Lord said: On the earlier Committee stage, I moved an Amendment to this clause providing that the closing time should be 12 noon rather than 10 a.m., as in the Bill as drafted. If the Bill had not been recommitted and the alterations had not been made in Clauses 18 and 20, I should have put down the same Amendment on Report stage and pressed it to a Division; but in view of the new Amendments to Clauses 18 and 20, I believe that the proper way of dealing with this matter now is to delete the whole of Clause 19. Clause 19, as drafted, is completely valueless. It re-enacts in principle Section 48 of the Shops Act, 1950, which in turn reinstated part of the Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) Act, 1936.
When I say that this clause is useless, I mean that it has hardly been made use of at all, although the powers granted by it were in force before. Recently, the officers responsible for the administration of the Shops Act in 158 local authorities, who comprised county councils, county boroughs, non-county boroughs and large urban districts, including most of the big cities and holiday resorts, were circularised with a series of questions. The majority of them replied to the circular. The first question they were asked was whether their own local authority had made an order under Section 48 of the Shops Act: in other words, had they made an order enabling those shops to be open until 10 a.m. on Sunday. In 117 cases the answer was "No"; there

367
were only 15 cases of authorities who had made use of their powers, and of that number 9 were in holiday resorts, which are dealt with separately in this Bill. So that up till now these powers have hardly been used. Then they were asked whether, if Clause 19 were to remain, 10 a.m. was a realistic hour, in the present circumstances. Only 5 said "Yes." It has long been realised that to ask people in modern times to shop before 10 a.m. means nothing at all. These officers were asked to what hour the opening should be extended if not 10 a.m. A few said 11 a.m. and a few said 7 p.m., but the vast majority said that, to be of any use, this clause must provide for a closing hour of 11 a.m. or 12 noon.
There remain, therefore, two alternatives: either to amend the hour in this clause to 11 a.m. or 12 noon, or to do away with the clause altogether. Which is the better course to take? Under this Bill holiday centres—not only holiday resorts, as generally understood—are covered by the special provisions contained in Clause 20. This Bill will now leave shops free to be open for the sale of food, to be defined by the Minister under Regulation 18; they will also be free to sell articles enumerated in the Second and Third Schedules. So that the majority of things it is necessary to sell on Sundays are already covered. What remains is the list that the Minister is going to make of what is going to be allowed to be sold. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the list is going to be long and comprehensive and contain a wide variety of foodstuffs; or will it be short? If it is going to be long and will cover a wide variety of goods, then there would seem to be no objection to the shop staying open until 12 noon, as I suggest, because most of the things it sells will be saleable until 7 p.m. If the list is going to be short, then 10 a.m. is useless. Nowadays, people are not going to shop before 10 a.m. and you might just as well do away with the whole clause.
If the noble Viscount accepts this Amendment, well and good. But if he refuses to accept it, and if the list is a long one, then on the Report stage I will revert to my original Amendment and move that the closing hour shall be 12 noon. At the moment, on balance, I feel that the clause is of no value—these
368
powers have hardly ever been used—and it may lead to certain difficulties again when a few things are saleable up to 10 a.m. and not afterwards. One does not know what the list will be, but, on balance, I think it is better to do without Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 19.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am inclined to think that my noble friend is right, although I would ask him not to press the Amendment at this stage, on the understanding that my right honourable friend's present inclination is to do as he suggests. He would like further time to consider whether any consequential Amendments are desirable. In principle, therefore, I accept the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I thank the noble Viscount. I think there will be one or two consequential Amendments, and on that undertaking, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will want to move further Amendments consequential upon the withdrawal of this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. There is still a Report stage to come, and my right honourable friend would like to consider what the consequences of having accepted this Amendment in principle will be. Therefore this Amendment is not pressed by my noble friend Lord Derwent, and the Bill remains as it was, but I have given an undertaking that the principle embodied in the Amendment will be accepted.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am not anxious about the stage which has been reached; I am prepared to wait and see what the noble Viscount does if it can be debated on the Report stage. However, I was hoping that we should avoid a Report stage on this Bill, and I was willing to assist in avoiding it. It seems to me that, in spite of what the noble Viscount says, we are gradually extending the different powers for Sunday trading, and a great many people in this country object to it. It is no answer for the noble Viscount to say that he is not allowing an extension of the hours of Sunday trading. The more

369
I see the way the debate is going, the more I think there is pressure being exerted to extend Sunday trading.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Amendment that I have accepted in principle is to remove a concession on Sunday trading. I do not know why that should cause the noble Viscount any anxiety.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is only because of the two concessions that have already been made to the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Power of local authority, in sea-fishing centres and holiday resorts, to extend certain Sunday opening hours and to permit Sunday opening for transactions specified in Fourth Schedule
20.—(1) A local authority whose area—

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

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

may by order direct that, as respects shops situate within their area or such part thereof as may be specified in the order, being shops registered by the authority under the last foregoing section, subsection (1) of that section shall, as respects such Sundays as may be so specified, have effect with the substitution, for the reference to ten o'clock in the morning, of a reference to such hour later than ten o'clock in the morning but not later than eight o'clock in the evening as may be so specified.
6.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "direct that", and to insert instead:
". notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, shops situate within the area of the authority or within such part thereof as may be specified in the order may, on such Sundays as may be so specified, he open at any time for the sale of food (other than raw meat or raw poultry)."
The noble and learned Viscount said: It may be convenient to take the rather complicated drafting of Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, together for the purpose of discussion. These Amendments serve two purposes. The first is to make subsection (1) of Clause 20 independent of Clause 19. As the Bill stands, on certain Sundays in the year the local authority can make an order
370
allowing the sale of food in a holiday resort or sea-fishing centre until 8 p.m. only if they first make an order under Clause 19 (7). It has been suggested that this is undesirable. The local authority may find that there is a need for food shops to stay open on Sundays during the holiday season, but no justification for their opening at all on the remaining Sundays of the year. The Amendments cater for this possibility, and I hope that this will give some satisfaction to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough.
The second purpose of the Amendments is to bring the Sunday provisions into line with Clause 4 as altered by the new Government Amendments to that clause. In other words, under these Amendments to Clause 20 the local authority in a holiday resort will be able to dispense with the closing hours during the season for shops which are already allowed to be open on Sundays for the sale of goods in the Third Schedule, and also to allow food shops and shops selling the goods in the Fourth Schedule to keep open without limit of time. This, like the Amendment to Clause 4, takes account of the views expressed by several noble Lords on the previous Committee stage. Under the present Act, on Sundays as on week-days, local authorities have power to fix as late an hour for these shops as they think fit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 19, leave out from (" that ") to end of line 26, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is useless to prolong the debate. This just pinpoints what I was saying earlier in the discussion to-day: you take away from the local authority the option of fixing shorter hours if the majority of the traders want it, and here you enlarge the powers of the local authorities in these particular places to extend the amount of Sunday trading which may be done. There you are using local option for the reactionary aim. You have taken away the local option where it could have had a progressive and improving aim. I am very much against it, but it is no good arguing.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The first two purposes have again as their object the limitation of Sunday trading, and not the extension of it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What about the others?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 31, leave out from ("Act") to ("for") in line 36 and insert ("shops situate within the area of the authority or within such part thereof as may be specified in the order may, on such Sundays as may be so specified, be open at any time").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 41, leave out from ("that") to ("for") in line 44 and insert (", notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, shops so situate may, on such Sundays as may be so specified, be open at any time").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 1, leave out from ("order") to end of line 7.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 10, at end insert—
("(4) In subsection (1) of this section the expression "food" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (9) of the last foregoing section and, so far as regards a shop registered under that section which is situate in an area to which an order under the said subsection (1) applies on a Sunday, the provisions of the order shall, in respect of that Sunday, have effect in lieu of the provisions of subsection (1) of that section.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Restriction on carrying on, on Sunday, of retail trade or business otherwise than in shops]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we took Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 together. These Amendments are consequential upon the Government's previous Amendments, and they make the same provision for persons trading from vans as the Government's Amendments to
372
Clauses 18 and 20 do for shops. I do not propose to move Amendment No. 39 if my noble friend is going to move his Amendment No. 40. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("or subsection (1) of the last foregoing section").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 40, leave out from ("shop") to ("and") in line 42.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JESSEL: In the temporary absence of my noble friend Lord Derwent from the Chamber, he has asked me to move this Amendment. It embodies the same principle which has already been accepted twice by Her Majesty's Government. It adds non-intoxicating drinks and ice-cream to what the Government have already proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 47, at the end insert ("or in the selling of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice cream (with or without edible containers), tobacco or smokers' requisites.")—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Offences under Part II]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This is a purely drafting Amendment, consequential upon the Government's Amendments to Clause 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, leave out from ("effecting") to ("is") in line 5 and insert ("with a customer a transaction of a kind for whose effecting the shop may be open on that Sunday for a limited period only (being a customer who is in the shop immediately before the end of that period), the shop").—(Lord Strachclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Special provisions with respect to shops occupied by persons of the Jewish religion or others who observe the Jewish Sabbath
(12) Where an application is made to a local authority in accordance with the provisions of

373
this section for the registration under this section of a shop, the authority may refuse to register the shop if its registration under this section or the registration there-under of any other shop (whether situate within or outside the area of the authority) has previously been revoked or cancelled at a time when its occupier was the applicant or a partnership or company any of whose partners or directors was the applicant or (where the applicant is a partnership or company) a partner or director thereof.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This Amendment would extend the grounds on which the local authority can refuse to register a Jewish shop under Clause 26. As subsection (12) stands, they can refuse only if registration under the Bill has previously been revoked or cancelled. It has been represented that local authorities would be put to the trouble of referring applications to the tribunal even, for example, when they knew that the tribunal, in a case referred to it under the 1950 Act, had previously found the applicant not to be a genuine Jew. The Amendment has the effect of empowering the local authority to refuse registration in such cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 14, at end insert ("or if it was registered under section fifty-three of the Shops Act, 1950, or the corresponding provision of the enactments repealed by that Act but is, at the commencement of this Act, neither registered under that section nor required Ito be taken to be so registered").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved to add to the clause:
"(16) This section shall not apply to persons carrying on or purporting to carry on the business of retail dealers in Kosher meat or Kosher poultry."
The noble Lord said: I think I can explain to your Lordships in a few words why I wish to move this Amendment. This clause provides for Jewish traders generally who observe the Jewish Sabbath. Jewish Kosher butchers are, however, specially provided for under Clause 29. Such special provision would be superfluous if it were the intention to make the provisions of Clause 26 apply to Jews holding themselves out as Kosher butchers. As the Bill stands, Clause 26 provides a butcher who fails to comply with Clause 29 with a loophole, since there is nothing to prevent a Kosher
374
butcher who loses his licence from taking advantage of Clause 26 as it now stands. It is desired to remove any doubts in this respect, and the proposed Amendment would effect this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 37, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Swaythling.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I have to explain that under Clause 26, as it stands, the local authority need have no regard whatsoever to the kind of trade carried on when registering shops under the clause. Under the Amendment, the local authority, before registering any shop, would have to make sure that it was not intended to sell Kosher meat or what was purported to be Kosher meat. A person registered under Clause 26 can sell ordinary butcher's meat on Sundays, and it would be impossible for a local authority to determine, before registering the shop, whether it was intended to sell the meat as Kosher meat. Moreover, the Amendment would have the effect of preventing shops which sold Kosher meat under the provisions of Clause 29 from getting registered under Clause 26 for the purpose of selling other things as well. The Amendment would, therefore, have substantial disadvantages, and I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it.
LORD SWAYTHLING: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Provisions to have effect in lieu of s. 12 in case of persons registered under Part III]
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 46 and 47 together. I would not propose to move Amendment No. 47 if my noble friend Lord Derwent is going to move the Amendment which he has already had inserted on a number of earlier occasions. The first three Amendments, Nos. 44, 45 and 46, are purely drafting. The last is consequential on the Government's previous Amendment. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 40, after ("on") insert ("within the area of a local authority").
Page 27, line 41, leave out ("a local") and insert ("that").
Page 27, line 44, leave out ("such a person") and insert ("him within the area of that authority").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 32, at end insert ("or in the selling of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice cream (with or without edible containers), tobacco or smokers' requisites.")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Offences under Part III]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Amendment No. 49 is a drafting Amendment designed to correct an oversight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 43, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(2) or (3)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.41 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: The Shops Act, 1950, defined clearly the penal results of a Jewish butcher opening on Sunday in contravention of the Act. Sections 61 to 63 of that Act laid down the requirements as to holding a Kosher butcher's licence. Section 64 said that any person contravening any of those three sections was liable to a penalty. In this Bill there is no such clear provision. It might be said that if the conditions of Clause 29 were not complied with the shop would be open in contravention of Part II of the Bill, and the occupier would be guilty of an offence under Clause 24. But Clause 24 is in Part II and is headed "Offences under Part II." Clause 24, moreover, states that it is an offence under Part II to keep open. The question might well be asked: if Clause 24 is sufficient to cover offences under Part III, as well as under Part II, why do Clauses 26, 27 and 28 in Part III each specifically refer to
"an offence consisting in a contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section"?
Why is Clause 35, which sets out offences under Part III, necessary? In each Part
376
of this Bill there is a clause referring to offences in that Part. Furthermore, my legal friends tell me that it is apprehended that a defendant might put forward as a defence the principle expressio unius exclusio alterius. The addition now proposed is designed to remove such doubt and the possibility of putting forward such a plea. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, after ("thereof") insert ("or any of the provisions of section twenty-nine thereof").—(Lord Swaythling.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary, for the very reason given by the noble Lord in moving it—that is, that if the conditions in Clause 29 are not complied with, the shop will be open in contravention of Part II of the Bill, in which there is a general prohibition on Sunday trading, and the occupier would therefore be guilty of an offence under Clause 24. That is the reason for my being unable to recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment. It is unnecessary. The point is already covered.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I cannot understand, therefore, why Clause 35 is necessary at all. If the offences under Part III are covered by Clause 24, it seems to me unnecessary that Clause 35 should exist.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I was really dealing with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I was not dealing with offences under Part III of the Bill.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I am sorry. The reason I suggest that this should be included in Clause 35 is because Clause 29 itself is in Part III. It seems to me only logical that it should therefore appear under Clause 35.
LORD SILKIN: I do not pretend to understand this legal argument. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is refusing the Amendment understands it either. It is very complicated. I would only suggest, respectfully, that if there is no issue of principle involved, as is the case so far as I know, it would be worth looking at more carefully. The noble Lord who has moved the Amendment has obviously been advised by high legal authority. I think it is just worth while having another look at the matter, to see

377
whether there is not something in the point that the noble Lord has made. We can return to it at a later stage.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have listened to all that has been said, and I am sure that what has been said will cause another look to be taken at it. Without expressing, on a very complicated matter of this kind, a conclusive opinion, I would say that it is Clause 29 which the noble Lord seeks to introduce into this Bill by his Amendment. All my noble friend said was that he was advised that a person who contravened Clause 29 would be guilty of an offence under Clause 24. Clause 35, which is the substantial clause under consideration and to which the Amendment is proposed, deals with a contravention of Clauses 26 and 27, which are more complicated and raise quite different issues from the general Sunday trading prohibition under Clause 24. At first blush, I do not see any of the difficulties which the noble Lord envisages. In view of what has been said, I am sure that my noble friend will cause the legal draftsmanship of this to be looked into again. The last thing we want is to have any anomalies of this kind. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised the doubts which were in his mind.
LORD SWAYTHLING: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Weekly half-holidays]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the following subsection" and insert "this section". The noble Viscount said: It would be convenient if this Amendment and Amendment No. 53, but not Amendment No. 52, were considered together for the purposes of the discussion. The first of the Amendments simply paves the way for the second. Amendment No. 53 is necessitated by the new form of Clause 7. As it stands, Clause 37 (2) enables a shopkeeper to postpone for up to four weeks his assistants' half-holidays in two out of the three weeks of Christmastide, provided that he allows them two out of the three Christmas and New Year holidays. This provision helps him to take full advantage of the provision in Clause 7
378
(as it was drafted in the Bill, but not as it now stands) allowing him to dispense with two early closing days during the three weeks of Christmastide. Since it is now proposed, as a result of our Amendments, that the new Clause 7 should allow the shopkeeper to dispense with early closing days in the three weeks of Christmastide, it is necessary to make provision for the postponement of assistants' half-holiday during that period. Similar provision has to be made for postponement of the assistants' half-holidays during Holy Week and the other weeks in which, under the new Clause 7, early closing days may be dispensed with. Apart from Christmastide, however, it seems sufficient to allow postponement for not more than two weeks. A longer period would add to the difficulties of enforcement.
During the previous Committee stage my noble friend Lord Coleraine moved Amendments to enable shopkeepers to give their assistants compensatory half-holidays before Christmas and Easter as an alternative to postponing the half-holidays. This would provide more flexibility for employers, without depriving assistants of their total entitlement to holidays. Indeed, it might well have the effect of inducing employers to give assistants a shopping holiday before Christmas, when it would be most valuable. My right honourable friend has accordingly decided to adopt Lord Coleraine's proposal, and this is provided for in the Amendments I am now moving. It should be noted that, although under these Amendments a shop assistant may lose his half-holiday in the specified weeks, he not only gets a compensatory holiday in another week within a limited period but is also guaranteed holidays on public holidays. I therefore hope that these Amendments may commend themselves to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 43, leave out ("the following subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: As the noble Viscount suggested that we discuss Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 together, I shall take advantage of his proposal to make one or two comments on No. 53. I think it is going to be difficult for me to avoid No. 52, so perhaps he will forgive me if I bring in No. 52 as well. The

379
suggestion I want to make is that it seems, on the face of it, that the drafting of Amendment No. 53 is not completely satisfactory, although the noble and learned Viscount may be able to explain it in a satisfactory way. It looks as though there has been an omission in relation to the notification of the compensatory whole-holidays or half-holidays in the proposed new subsection (2).
The noble and learned Viscount will remember that on the Committee stage we had a long discussion of the method of notification, which is usually by putting up a notice in the shop giving the time and day of the holiday. He thought, and I agreed, that it would be better done by regulations under the Bill, rather than in the terms of the Bill. That is what the noble and learned Viscount proposed to do in relation to ordinary weekly half-holidays, under subsection (1) of Clause 37. Subsection (1), with the Amendment that he is proposing, No. 52, would read as follows—I will not read the first few words which are not relevant:
"…the occupier of a shop shall allow in each week to every shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop a half-holiday on a business day which shall he notified "—
and here I take in the words of the Amendment—
"at the prescribed time and in the prescribed form and manner."
That is to say, the Minister will have power to make regulations under Clause 54 for the notification of the half-holiday in the appropriate way. But the Minister is not taking any such power in regard to notification of the compensatory holidays provided for under the new subsection (2) of this clause. That is how I read it, and I very much hope the noble and learned Viscount will look at it carefully to see whether there has been an omission to provide for notification, because it is extremely important, and especially in the case of these rather unusual holidays and half-holidays, from the point of view of the local authorities who have to enforce the provisions of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am bound to say that this point has taken me, to some extent, unprepared. I had myself considered that the position was that under the main subsection, which is subsection (1), the half-holiday would have
380
to be notified in the prescribed form and manner. Subsection (2) was limited to the compensatory half-holidays, and I had not thought that they were subject to any special prescription. I thought that what had happened was that during the whole of the year, except the holiday period, the half-holidays must be notified in the prescribed form, time and manner, but that it was a defence in regard to failure to perform that duty in respect of the holiday period if the shopkeeper could say he had, in fact, allowed the compensation. That was how I looked at it. I have to some extent not been apprised of this point, and it may therefore be that I am mistaken; but if I am mistaken, and if there is anything that ought to be added, in view of what I have said, I will undertake to communicate with the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it is his intention that these compensatory half-holidays should be notifiable? That is the essential point. I think I can assure him that from the point of view of the local authorities it is important that they should know whether or not the employees are getting their compensatory holidays. It will be impossible for them to inspect the shops to see whether they are getting these half-holidays unless there is a notice when the half-holidays will take place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I had not thought that that was the case. As I had read it, it was not done, and it was intentionally not done. If I should turn out to be mistaken, I, not having taken special advice about this matter, will undertake to communicate with the noble Earl. I had thought the position was that the shopkeepers were being given a concession which was generally suggested, and it was not made a condition of that concession that a separate notification should be made to the local authority as to the form in which the concession should be used. It is, of course, true that the result of that would be that the local authority would not have in respect of every shop a vast mass of notifications about Christmas time, but I should have thought that that was as much to the advantage of the local authority as of the shopkeeper; and it would not seriously

381
impede enforcement because enforcement depends upon complaint. Whereas complaint over the general period of the year would depend upon a regular day being granted and notified in the proper way, the whole point of this concession is that for the particular period of the year, namely Christmastide, the concession is adopted by giving the assistant the half-holiday at no previously determined or specified time, provided he is told and is able to avail himself of it. If I am wrong about it, I will undertake to communicate with the noble Earl. The point is not specifically dealt with in the advice I have received. I am really giving what is my first opinion.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am entirely satisfied and indeed grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his undertaking, and I regret I could not give him prior information. Clearly, it is not a thing he could reply to in a final way without having the advantage of advice. If he will be good enough to look into it, that is all I am asking, and I shall await his reply between now and the Report stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This matter has already been discussed in relation to the other Amendment, but as I did not discuss it myself perhaps I should deal with it briefly. It is intended that regulations should be made for the purpose of Clause 37 (1) prescribing the form and manner in which assistants should be notified of the day of their weekly half-holiday. Such regulations have long been in force under the present law. The purpose of this Amendment is to give specific power to require the notification to be given by, say, the Saturday before the week in which the holiday falls. This power exists under the present law. The purpose of requiring advance notification is, of course, to ensure that the assistants are not given their holidays at such short notice that they are unable to make the best use of them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 2, after ("notified") insert ("at the prescribed time and").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have already dealt with this subject. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The occupier of a shop may, in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop, dispense with compliance with the foregoing subsection as respects the three weeks of Christmastide, or any of them, provided that he allows that assistant, for each week as respects which such compliance is dispensed with,—

(a) a whole holiday on one of the Christmas and new year holidays; and

(b) a half-holiday on a business day during the four weeks next preceding or succeeding that week.

(3) The occupier of a shop may, in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop, dispense with compliance with subsection (1) of this section as respects Holy week, provided that he allows that assistant a whole holiday on Good Friday and a half-holiday on a business day during the two next preceding or succeeding weeks.
(4) The occupier of a shop may, in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop, dispense with compliance with subsection (1) of that section as respects—

(a) the week next before Whit week;

(b) the week next before that in which falls the first Monday in August;

provided that he allows that assistant a whole holiday on the Monday next following and a half-holiday on a business clay during the two next preceding or succeeding weeks.
(5) A half-holiday which a shop assistant is, by virtue of subsection (2), (3) or (4) of this section, entitled to be allowed in any period shall be in addition to the half-holidays which he is, by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, entitled to be allowed in that period.").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Intervals for meals and rest]:
7.3 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that this subsection shall apply only to such an assistant in respect of any week in which he is employed about the business of a shop for more than twenty-five hours."
The noble Lord said: In the earlier Committee stage I tried to deal with one or two anomalies in respect of part-time workers. In perhaps a rather clumsy way, I sought to alter the definition of "shop assistant" and to put part-time workers back into the Bill. On this occasion in two places I have sought by Amendment to deal with part-time

383
workers. The definition of a part-time worker is as in the Shops Act, 1934, for young persons—those who work twenty-five hours a week or less. As that definition has been accepted up to now, it would seem to be a suitable one in this Bill. These part-time workers are covered in Clause 38 (1)—I am not suggesting that they should be treated differently from anyone else.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, raised the question before of what would happen if these people did most of their work during the week on a couple of days, working about ten hours each day. Of course, they have to be protected against that, and I have not sought to amend subsection (1). But with regard to subsection (2) there is, if I may so term it, a little bit of nonsense. Many part-time workers come to work in the middle of the day only. I referred last time to a large body of part-time workers who come to the City at about 11.30 a.m. and serve lunches, and who go away at about 2.30 or 3 o'clock. They do about twenty hours' work a week, or perhaps not quite so much, and they work at no other time in the City. According to subsection (2) as drafted, not only must these people have time off for lunch—of course, the only time they are working is during lunch time—but they must have it during the lunch hour and at no other time. If that is the effect, there is no point in their going down to the City at all.
This happens all over the country. When I said "the City", I meant that it is particularly prevalent there at lunch hours as regards restaurants, but it happens also in shops. A large number of married women, part-time workers, take over their temporary jobs in the middle of the day while the other permanent work people go off to their luncheons. It seems absurd that during the short hours these part-time workers are working each day they should have time off for lunch when they are not working the rest of the day. The effect of the Amendment is that it will not be compulsory to give these temporary workers, who work twenty-five hours a week or less, unless they work more than five hours in any one day, time for meals and rest. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Government cannot accept this Amendment. As regards the first of the two complaints of my noble friend, I would say that the case of the person who is employed to serve lunches and nothing else, if he serves in a catering establishment which produces food for consumption on the premises, is adequately protected, in our view, by Clause 40 (3). That clause provides adequate facilities for catering workers and meets my noble friend's point: that is to say, the employer, if he is in a catering establishment (which is the first case proposed) is not bound to give a lunch hour during the lunch period, because the person is employed to serve lunches.
As regards the second point, I think my noble friend is under some misapprehension. The lunch hour must be provided—I think it is called "dinner hour" in the clause—only if the employee is continuously employed from 11.30 to 2.30. I am bound to say that, except in the catering trade, I think a dinner hour ought to be provided. I do not think it is legitimate to employ a worker, except in the catering trade, in the ordinary course between 11.30 and 2.30 without providing some interval for refreshment. This is an extremely generous provision to employers. They have only to employ the worker from 12 o'clock till 3 o'clock, which is the same period of time and covers the period in which the normal employees are at their dinners, and they need not provide a lunch hour at all. Or they can employ from 11.30 till 2 o'clock, which equally in some other cases would cover the dinner hour, and they need not provide a lunch hour at all. All that the Bill says is that if the employees go the whole way through from 11.30 to 2.30 without a break they must have a lunch hour in that period. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I am not sure that I understand why my noble friend thinks it is unreasonable, except in the catering trade, which is the subject of special provisions.
LORD DERWENT: I must admit that I had not read that he had to be employed during the whole of that period from half-past eleven. Shopkeepers are therefore

385
fully warned in future that they must "wangle" it. If you are going to "wangle" it by employing people from 11.31 a.m., there does not seem to be much point in having this clause in the Bill. I really think that the argument that shopkeepers are expected to "wangle" a thing by one minute so as to avoid the Bill is rather regrettable. I still think it is rather stupid, if a person is employed for under five hours. The hours laid down are the times when these people come to work—they have their dinners before or afterwards at home. They are working a very limited time. Now, everyone will know that the Minister intends that shopkeepers shall "wangle" this business and therefore they need not bother.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I very much resent the suggestion that I intend that anybody should do what my friend has described as "wangle". I am not sure that I am aware what a "wangle" is, but I am quite sure that it is something that. I should not advise anybody to do, either personally or practising as a lawyer. If any shopkeeper is misguided enough to take my noble friend's advice and to try working on a margin of a minute, can only say that he will do it against, and not with, my advice.
LORD DERWENT: I still regret the attitude that Her Majesty's Government have taken about this matter. I think it is unpractical and, in spite of what the noble Viscount has said, I think it will lead to what I call "wangling". But in view of the fact that he is not prepared to give way at the moment, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the guidance of the noble and learned Viscount? I have put down an Amendment, No. 61, which seeks to provide that this clause shall not apply to a particular section of the community. Having listened to the noble Viscount, I am in doubt as to whether my Amendment should be to this clause or to Clause 45. Clause 38 makes it obligatory upon an employer to see that his staff have proper intervals for meals—which I think is right; but Amendment
386
No. 45 turns travelling salesmen into shop assistants. Do I move to amend Clause 45 or Clause 38? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount could advise me. If not, I will move my Amendment on Clause 45, and if the noble and learned Viscount then tells me that that is the wrong place for it I shall have to consider putting it down at another stage of the Bill. The argument I shall raise is that, while it is highly desirable, it is absolutely impracticable to impose, and try to enforce, on an employer an obligation in respect of a travelling salesman who may be 100 miles away from the place of business at the time when the employer should be arranging for him to have a meal interval.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The only Amendment with which I was dealing was that of my noble friend, and perhaps I had better wait until Amendment No. 61 before discussing it, as it relates to a somewhat different matter. I am distressed that the noble Lord should think I might complain, if I should resist the Amendment, that it is in the wrong part of the Bill, as that is not the kind of point that I am in the habit of making.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I said that only to be helpful. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount has taken umbrage. He has had a strenuous day and it is now ten minutes past seven. Perhaps he will be more fortified after the adjournment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I shall deal with the matter, I hope faithfully, when it comes. I was only a little impatient at having the matter raised thirty Amendments before it should be.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble and learned Viscount wishes to be meticulous, I was merely asking advice, on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Sunday work]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 33, leave out ("subsection (1) or (2)") and insert ("any of the provisions").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to add to the clause:
"(4) This section shall not apply to a shop assistant employed to work about the business of a shop on a Sunday if he was not employed about the business of that shop on any weekday of the preceding week."
The noble Lord said: This is a clause dealing with Sunday work, and I am seeking to take out of the provisions of this clause those who work only on Sundays. It applies only to two classes of people. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that in many cases it refers to petrol pump attendants who work only on Sundays when the ordinary attendants are off duty; and it applies very largely to shops which open at holiday resorts in the season. They employ a great many people on Sundays only. That is very important in the North, where the season is comparatively short, and where whole-time workers always have Sunday off and there are one or more persons who come in and work only on Sundays. For the purpose of this clause, I suggest that those who work only on Sundays might well be left out of the operation of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My right honourable friend is disposed to agree to consider this Amendment if the noble Lord will agree not to press it at this stage. The effect of the Amendment appears to be that those shop assistants who work on Sundays only could be employed every Sunday, unlike whole-time assistants who, except in catering establishments, must be given one Sunday off in four. There might be a good deal to be said for this Amendment taken on its own, and we are certainly prepared to consider it, but all the employment provisions in Part V are closely related and a number of suggestions have been made for amending them. Her Majesty's Government would wish to examine how far they affect one another. Moreover, it may well be that in matters affecting conditions of employment Her Majesty's Government would wish to take the opinion of another place before reaching a conclusion. I hope, however, that my noble friend will not think my attitude unfriendly, and that in those circumstances
388
he will not press the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and on his undertaking I will not, of course, press the Amendment. But when he comes to consider this, will he and his right honourable friend look carefully into the effect on holiday resorts, particularly the smaller resorts, where considerable difficulty might be caused? I leave that thought with him, and I am grateful to him for saying that he will go into the matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Special exceptions as regards persons engaged in the catering trade]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is purely drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 20, after ("(2)") insert (3) or (4)").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Special exceptions as respects employment of certain pharmacists on Sunday]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment also is purely drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 34, leave out ("subsection (1) or (2)") and insert ("any of the provisions")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Construction of references to allowance of half-holidays and whole holidays
43.—(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a person employed to work about the business of a shop—
(a) shall be deemed to be allowed by the occupier of that shop a half-holiday on a day if on that day that person is not employed to work about the business of that shop after half-past one o'clock in the afternoon or the expiration of four and a half hours from the time when he begins to be so employed on that day, whichever is the later;
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out all words from and including "after half-past one" down to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead:

"(i) After half-past one o'clock in the afternoon; or

(ii) in the case of a person employed to work about the business of that shop for not more than twenty-five hours in a week on the expiration of four and a half hours from the time when he began to be so employed on that day or half-past one o'clock in the afternoon, whichever is the later; "

The noble Lord said: I have put this Amendment down as it seems to right what is an unfairness. The catering industry are dealt with under an entirely different clause. They have this problem of hours of work and of when one should count a half holiday, because, of course, they have strange hours. But for the rest, those who come under Clause 3, it seems grossly unfair that a man should be told he can have his half-holiday after four and a half hours' work, and that the shopkeeper might say that he shall start work after 11.30 and finish at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when he can be off duty, thus taking his half-holiday. To most of us outside the catering trade, a half-holiday which starts at three or four o'clock in the afternoon is not a half-holiday. I have therefore sought to alter this clause so that the provision dealing with the four and a half hours shall apply only to part-time workers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 9, leave out from ("shop") to end of line 12 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have a good deal of sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment, but Her Majesty's Government cannot accept it, for reasons that I am about to give. Under Clause 43 (1) (a), as printed, a shop assistant is deemed to be allowed a half-holiday if he is released by 1.30 in the afternoon, or four and a half hours after the time when he began work. Either of those arrangements will give him the half-holiday to comply with the law. The effect of the Amendment would be to confine the four-and-a-half-hours provision to part-time workers; so that the full-time worker would be deemed to have a half-holiday only if he were released by 1.30 p.m.
390
It was, of course, largely for the part-timers that the four-and-a-half-hours provision was inserted. But it is by no means the only purpose that it serves. In many establishments of various kinds, including catering establishments, assistants commonly begin work late, and the effect of the Amendment would be that at such establishments a whole-time assistant who was beginning work at 11 a.m. would have to be released on his weekly half-holiday at 1.30 p.m., which would give him only two and a half hours' work. Under Section 21 of the present Act the employer in a catering establishment can, if he wishes, adopt provisions which include, among other things, the requirement that assistants must be released on their half-holiday not later than 3 p.m. So in that case he would be dealt with. If the four-and-a-half-hours provision for whole-time workers were abolished, I think that some similar provision in this Part of the Bill would he necessary.
If some similar provision to this were introduced into this Part of the Bill, an assistant might be required to begin work at, say, 9 a.m. and he might be employed for six hours on his so-called half-holiday, which would clearly be unfair to the employee. On the other hand, the employer would not be able to require his assistant to work serving dinners for a few hours on the evening of the assistant's half-holiday, even though the assistant was free until, say, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. That would be unfair to the employer. We think that the only fair and flexible provision which overcomes these anomalies is to ensure that on his half-holiday the assistant is not employed more than approximately half a working day. The four-and-a-half-hours provision serves a useful purpose in relation to whole-time workers, as well as to part-time workers, in so far as it achieves this result. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will not think it necessary, to press his Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I do not intend to press the Amendment, but I wish the noble Viscount would have another look at it. I am still wondering whether something cannot be done. I see the difficulties, in view of the way in which the Amendment is drafted. Suppose the half-day is Saturday, and the youthful members of the staff, or the younger

391
members of the staff, at a biggish place, are not let off until 3 o'clock in the afternoon in the winter. Such people like to play football or to go to watch football matches. If this is insisted upon, these people do not really get a half-holiday. I see the difficulty in regard to drafting. I would ask the noble Viscount to have another look at this question, because it seems to me that in certain cases there might be gross unfairness. I know that the noble Viscount always has another look at things when we ask him to do so. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, though I am not very happy about the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Records of Sunday work and certain holidays]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is purely a drafting and consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 2, after ("(2)") insert ("(3) or (4)").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Application of foregoing provisions of Part V to persons employed in connection with retail trade or business otherwise than in shops]:
7.25 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(6) Section thirty-eight of this Act shall not apply to travelling representatives and salesmen."
The noble Lord said: As I read Clause 45, it makes travelling salesmen and travelling representatives shop assistants, with the result that the provisions of Clause 37 which relate to weekly half holidays, and Clause 38, which deal with intervals for meals and rest, and Clause 39, which has reference to Sunday work, all apply to them. I have no complaint in that; I think it is right that Clause 37 and Clause 39 should apply to them. But with regard to Clause 38 I would suggest that it is absolutely beyond the ability of any employer to see that his travelling representative or salesman, who might be a hundred miles from his place of business, conforms to the Statute
392
regarding meal times. I think it is unfair to put a responsibility of that sort on the employer. As I understand it, Clause 45 puts that onus upon the employer. I would repeat that I do not think it is practicable for the employer to enforce it, so I do not think it is good policy to put it in the Bill. I have therefore drafted this new subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 23, at end insert—
"(6) Section thirty-eight of this Act shall not apply to travelling representatives and salesmen ".—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is an Amendment for which I would have, I think, considerable sympathy were I not advised that it is unnecessary and is based on a wrong reading of the way in which Clause 38 would in fact apply to travellers—if that is the right word nowadays to describe them. The only effect, I am advised, of Clause 38 in relation to travellers is that employers cannot legally compel them to disregard the provisions concerning half-holidays and meal hours. They cannot make them work in such a way as to have no half-holiday and no meal hour. It is probably not unreasonable to exact that as a safeguard against exploitation. The reason I am advised that this is so is that Clause 62 provides employers with the defence that they used all due diligence to secure compliance with the requirements of the Bill. The most that the Bill requires them to do is to refrain from instructing their travellers (that is to say, those who sell retail; ordinary commercial travellers who are engaged in the wholesale trade are outside the scope of the Bill) to work hours which are contrary to the requirements of Clause 38, and it may be possible to inform travellers of their entitlements under that clause. If the travellers chose, nevertheless, to ignore their entitlements, their employers could not possibly be regarded as having committed an offence. For that reason, and not because we do not sympathise with its purpose, we do not accept this Amendment. I rather entertain the hope that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation. It was because I had a slight doubt in my own mind that I raised this

393
matter on the Motion that Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill—for which I was severely reproved. May I study the noble Viscount's explanation, which at first blush is rather like other explanations which he has given me: I do not know whether it is going to hold legal water—if that is a correct expression. If I am advised that it does not, the noble Lord will not mind if I return to this matter at another stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 48 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at half-past seven o'clock and resumed at half-past eight.]
Clause 49:
Local authorities for purposes of this Act
49.—(1) The local authority for the purposes of this Act as respects England and Wales, other than the administrative county of London, shall he the council of the borough, urban district or rural district.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" to insert
"the Shops Act, 1950, and Part I of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938,".
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 together. They are on the same line as the Amendments I have moved to try to get over what I think are serious anomalies in the Bill. I will be as brief as I can, but I should like to point out to your Lordships again that this Bill repeals most of the provisions of the 1950 Act in regard to enforcement. It replaces them with fresh provisions, the enforcement of which will be the duty of the county district councils, while the unrepealed provisions of the 1950 Act will still remain the responsibility of the county councils. The effect of this Bill will be that in rural arid smaller urban districts two local authorities will be exercising enforcement functions, so that the same shops w ill be visited by two sets of inspectors. This seems to me an absurd duplication of the enforcement machinery. What is even more absurd is that many of the duplicated functions will be closely related—for example, the
394
county council inspectors will be concerned with the hours of employment of young persons, while the district council inspectors will be concerned with the half-holidays and meal intervals of the same employees.
On the previous Committee stage, I argued that all Shops Act functions should become the responsibility of the county district councils, and this would be achieved if the Government would accept this Amendment. What I have done in this Amendment, which I did not do before, is to provide for the transfer to the district councils of the provisions of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938. By doing that, I try to meet one of the objections which the noble Viscount had to my previous Amendment. The noble Viscount then said that the 1938 Act was outside the scope of the Bill and therefore it would not be in order to amend it. I would question that, and I would suggest that the Bill could modify the 1938 Act if it were desirable administratively to do so, because when the Shops Act, 1950, was before Parliament, Sections 8, 11, 12 and 13 of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, were repealed. Similarly, when it suited the Government's purpose to do it, the 1938 Act was utilised to amend the Shops Act, 1934. The Young Persons (Employment) Act has always been closely related to the Shops Act, and this relation is emphasised by the section in the Act which provides for a measure of joint consultation.
There seems to be no reason why the present Bill should not further amend the Act and ensure that the whole of the functions relating to the closing of shops and to employment is placed in the hands of one authority—that is, the district council. If at any future date there is any reorientation of the functions of local authorities and this needs to be altered, then it could be altered, I should say, by consent. I have been brief because I do not want to go over the arguments I have used before. But I would say to the noble Viscount that the next Amendment, No. 64, is an alternative to the one I am moving now. It does riot clear up all the anomalies, but it does ensure that related functions are carried out by the same local authority.
I thought I would put these Amendments down again to see whether the

395
noble Viscount and his advisers had altered their views, now that they had had time to consider the position. In view of the recent Government White Paper, I suggest to the noble Viscount that the arguments I have advanced may have even greater validity now than perhaps they had before. I hope he will be able to consider these Amendments, which are put forward for the sake of simplification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 32, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
8.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I fully appreciated the spirit in which these Amendments have been moved, but the crux of the matter remains exactly where it was when we last discussed the point. The noble Lord, with commendable industry, has sought to meet a particular point which I raised, and I must, without any presumption, I hope, say that I appreciate what he has done. However, the ultimate crux of the matter is whether we deal with this particular problem in advance of the reorganisation of local government, or whether we deal with it as part of the reorganisation of local government. The Government take the latter view.
In order to put the Committee "in the picture" as regards this particular dispute, which I regret to admit is a highly technical one, I may say that Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendments during the previous Committee stage which would have had the effect of making all district councils in England and Wales outside London responsible for enforcing not only the provisions of this Bill but also all the untouched provisions of the Shops Act, 1950, concerning the employment of young persons, both in shops and other places where retail trade is carried on, and the health and comfort of shop workers. One of the reasons why I objected to the Amendments on that occasion was that under the Amendments responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the Shops Act, 1950, about young persons' hours would be transferred to the smaller district councils, but responsibility for enforcing the almost identical provisions contained in the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, would remain with the county councils. I thereupon argued that the result would have
396
been that, in order to cure one anomaly, the Amendments would create another.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has recognised the force of this, and his new Amendments are the same as the Amendments he moved before, except that he now seeks to overcome the Government's objection by transferring to all district councils responsibility for enforcing the 1938 Act as well. As I have said, I appreciate the sincerity with which he has moved in the matter to meet what was a genuine objection on our part. I wish I could say that, as a result of his good work, we were prepared to accept the Amendment, but to my mind the proposal is still open to serious objection. I think it is fair to myself to remind the Committee that I said so before, and I am not now putting forward a new objection. I said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, (No. 38) col. 59]:
"The crux of the matter is young persons' hours. The responsibility for enforcing the almost identical provisions contained in the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, is and must remain with the county councils."
I then added the words:
"I say' must remain', because an arrangement designed to transfer it from the county councils would be outside the scope of this Bill and, therefore, out of order."
I am afraid that that is the view the Government take at the moment, although I would not put it on a question of order, but on a question of constitutional propriety, since one can never be sure that one is perfectly right on a technical point of order.
The Government are not necessarily opposed in principle to the eventual transfer to district councils of all functions in this field, but this is not the occasion, we feel, on which to do it. This is a Bill which relates to shops and to retail trade. The 1938 Act relates to the employment of young persons in a wide variety of occupations, including, for instance, messenger boys employed in any business whatsoever—the publication of newspapers, or as swimming bath attendants, cinematograph projectionists and so on. The only connection between the Act of 1938 and the present Bill is that they both contain employment provisions enforceable by some local authorities. Special statutory protection for young persons, such as that contained in the 1938 Act and in the untouched provisions of the Shops Act,

397
1950, is a distinct subject on which the Gowers Committee reported separately, and which the Government have under separate consideration. The health and comfort of shop assistants is, in our view, at arty rate, again a separate subject, being part of the wider subject of health, welfare and safety in non-industrial employment generally, which again the Government are considering.
Of course, it is appreciated that the simplest arrangement would be for district councils to be given all these functions without delay, but I would point out that there is no reason why, if any difficulty is experienced locally, a county council should not delegate its remaining functions to district councils—in fact, I understand that this bas already been done fairly widely. Indeed, many district councils have for a long time past been given, by delegation, practically complete responsibility for the health and comfort provisions of the 1950 Act. Subject to that, I would say, as I said on the previous occasion, that we must await a more general reorganisation of local government functions to collect together the various statutory provisions and to make them into a more intelligible pattern. Whilst I appreciate what has been done by the noble Lord, and especially his consideration in meeting what was at any rate a surface objection on the previous occasion, I must stand where I stood before in saying that an attempt to interfere with the provisions of the 1938 Act relating to young persons is really outside the scope of this Bill, and that this Bill is therefore not the appropriate instrument to choose to put the matter right.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, because it appears to me, listening to him with the attention that what he said deserves, that there is nothing between us as to the desirability of doing what I want to do. The point is that he does not consider this is the right time or the method by which to do it. I accept that. I can only hope that continual attention will be given to this matter, because I am sure it is the noble Viscount's desire—perhaps when legislation is brought forward on the reorientation of the functions of local government—to consider whether that might be the time to bring many of these desirable features into force. I am sure the noble Viscount does
398
not want to duplicate statutory authorities' duties or to employ redundant labour. I will accept, though with some regret, what the noble Viscount has said, I can appreciate the force of his argument, and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (1):
"and section seventy-three of the Shops Act, 1950, and section six of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, shall cease to have effect so far as they relate to England and Wales other than the administrative county of London:"
The noble Lord said: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I imagine that he will see less virtue in this Amendment than in the last, because this is an alternative. In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I will not trouble your Lordships by moving it. Nor do I propose to move my Amendment No. 64.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, as respects any administrative county in England and Wales, other than the administrative county of London, the council of a borough, urban district or rural district may at any time, by agreement with the council of the county in which the borough or district is situate, relinquish in favour of, and transfer to, the council of the county any of their functions tinder this Act for such period and upon such terms and subject to such conditions, if any, including terms and conditions as to the transfer of property and liabilities, as may be specified in the agreement, provided always that any such agreement shall contain provision for the council so relinquishing any of their functions to reimburse to the county council the full cost of discharging such functions."
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment that I hope the noble Viscount will see some virtue in, because, in his explanation to me, he said that it was possible under existing legislation for the county councils to delegate their functions, or some of there, to district councils, If your Lordships will remember, I argued upon the Committee stage that it might be advisable in places in certain circumstances, between now and the time when further legislation is passed, for district councils in turn to delegate their functions to county councils. I argued that perhaps it was not economic for the smaller rural district

399
councils to set up the machinery that would be necessary under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and that they should be allowed to opt out.
I have put down this Amendment and have tried to meet again what the noble Viscount had, I think, in mind: the problem of who would bear the cost if extra burdens not taken care of by legislation were put on to the county councils. The district councils would be relieved of the cost, the county councils would have to bear it, and that might cause some complications. The noble Viscount will see that I have added a proviso now to the Amendment. Where, by agreement, an urban district or rural district council opts out and requests the county council to carry on their functions under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, this proviso lays down:
"provided always that any such agreement shall contain provision for the council so relinquishing any of their functions to reimburse to the county council the full cost of discharging such functions."
That would do away with the necessity for the county councils to levy a charge upon all their other district councils to meet the increased cost because one of them wanted to relinquish their functions.
I hope that that will tempt the noble Viscount to accept this Amendment, because I believe that, administratively, it is desirable, where there is mutual arrangement and mutual agreement, for there to be the reciprocal arrangement that, where county councils can, under previous legislation, delegate some of their functions imposed by the Bill to the district councils, district councils should, in turn, delegate to the county council some of their functions, if it is far more suitable and economic for them so to do, provided now that they stand the cost of so doing. The noble Viscount has admitted, and I quite agree with him, that it is a highly complicated subject, about which I do not pretend to know much. I hope that what I have said may tempt him to accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
8.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Again the noble Lord, if I may say so respectfully, deserves full marks for the industry with
400
which he has studied and mastered an extremely technical case and also for the care with which he has sought to meet an objection with which he was faced before. This Amendment is in almost identical terms with those of the previous one, except that the noble Lord has, as he said, added the provision for reimbursement of county councils. I wish I could accept an Amendment which has, at any rate on personal grounds, so much to commend it; but on the previous occasion it was resisted on the ground that it remained to be seen whether power for district councils to relinquish their responsibilities to county councils was desirable not only in the field of shops legislation (which is what we are discussing now) but over the whole field of local government responsibilities.
In accordance with our general custom, I think I may have given a specific undertaking to do so, but whether I did or not it is part of our general custom to give further consideration to matters of this kind. It appears, however, that there is no general agreement on the desirability of providing such a power of relinquishment, and my right honourable friend cannot at present, therefore, accept the Amendment. The Government would, I think, be wrong to do so or to accept it in the absence of such a general agreement. In particular, I understand that the Urban District Councils Association are unlikely to agree to it and, in fact, are not in favour of it. Although, therefore, I would thank the noble Lord for having raised the subject again, I am bound to tell him that the Government is still unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I hope his explanation will placate those folk who feel rather strongly about this question. In the long term I do not think it matters much. In the short term I thought it would be of convenience. As the noble and learned Viscount says, there is no agreement upon this matter between the parties concerned, and I wondered whether the Government, in face of this disagreement, were prepared to step in and be the arbitrator. But perhaps fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so I suppose we must wait till the respective local authorities can agree, which I hope they will be able to do between now and the introduction of

401
fresh legislation in about two years' time. I thank the noble Viscount for the explanation and I think we must say that that is the end of it. I beg leave to withdraw The Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 63 agreed to.
Clause 64:
General interpretation provisions
"Kosher meat" means butcher's meat prepared according to Jewish law and "Kosher poultry" means poultry so prepared;
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is purely drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 11, at end insert (" 'the evening closing requirements' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2) of section one of this Act;").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps I may take this Amendment and No. 70 together for the purposes of discussion. This Amendment, as your Lordships appreciate, is an insertion in the definition clause, which relates to the definition of Kosher meat. It has been represented to the Home Secretary that with the definitions of Kosher meat and of Kosher poultry as they stand in the Bill, some people might be led to think that, for the purposes of the Bill, meat or poultry might be regarded as Kosher even though it had not, in fact, been killed according to Jewish law. This is not, of course, our intention, and we think these Amendments make it plain beyond any possible doubt that this is not our intention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 19, after ("meat") insert ("killed and").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD SWAYTHLING: Before this Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount is put to the Committee, may I say a word about Amendments 68, 69 and 71, which stand in my name? I feel that if No. 67 is passed it will make a technical difficulty in considering No. 68. Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 71 are all part of the same Amendment. The Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, pre-scribed the conditions under which
402
animals could be slaughtered according to the Jewish ritual method. To ensure observance of these conditions, it set up a body called the Rabbinical Commission, and it laid down that only those slaughter-men who hold the licence of the Commission may kill by the Jewish method. Those provisions were arrived at after much thought, deliberation and consultation with all the parties concerned. It is felt that, statutory effect having been given to them, it would he more logical, more precise and generally more satisfactory to define Kosher meat by reference to the statutory provisions which are set out in Section 1 of the 1933 Act. I am not particularly wedded to the wording of my Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount would accept the principle of reference to the Jewish method of slaughter in the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, I should be quite prepared to alter the wording in such a way as would better meet the question. I hope that some reference can be made to that proviso in the Act in relation to the definition of Kosher meat and poultry. The difficulty I am in is that if Amendment No. 69 is accepted, we insert the words "killed and", and therefore we cannot consider my Amendment No. 68.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If I might make a suggestion, subject to any ruling of the Lord Chairman, I think the convenient course is that we should continue to discuss these Amendments together, and then we should decide the proper course in regard to putting the Question when we decide what we really want to do. They are alternative Amendments. Although I think they could he married, I do not particularly want them married; I think they ought to be discussed as alternatives.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I should be ready to agree to that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether the Committee would allow me (I think technically I am entitled to make a second speech, but I do not want to trespass on the Committee) to address some remarks on what the noble Lord has just said about his own Amendment, which I had not taken into account in my remarks. Of course, it is the desire of the Government to satisfy the requirements of Jewish feelings in this matter, but for the reasons which I am about to give, we still prefer our own

403
Amendments and I hope that both the noble Lord and the Committee may find them satisfactory.
As originally drafted, and as it stands in the print at the moment, we agree that the text of the Bill is open to doubt and therefore objectionable. It was for that reason, as I explained to the Committee, that we proposed to insert the words "killed and" in front of the word "prepared". The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord contains a reference to Section 1 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933. From the point of view of drafting that is inept. Draftsmanship is of considerable importance in considering a matter of this kind, because the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, is not confined to the Jewish method of slaughter at all. It provides for slaughter alternatively by humane killer and by the Jewish method of ritual slaughter. Therefore, simply from the point of view of draftsmanship, the Government Amendment does, and in our view the alternative Amendment does not, meet the requirements of the Jewish authorities. Even then, assuming that something can be done (I am not quite sure what the noble Lord wants to be done), I do not think it would really be as good as we now propose.
In dealing with provisions relating to what is Kosher meat, I have to look back at Clause 29, and one must draw a distinction between the provision relating to the keeping open of a shop by a person of Jewish persuasion and the selling of Kosher meat: one is dealt with in Clause 26, whereas Kosher meat is dealt with under Clause 29. In the sale of Kosher meat, looking at the provisions of Clause 29 (1) (a), the contention there is that the person who wants to get the benefit of Clause 29
"must be licensed for the sale of Kosher meat by the Local Board of Shechita or, in the absence of any such Board, by a committee appointed for the purpose by the local Jewish congregation established in accordance with Jewish law; "
In other words, not only must Kosher meat itself be killed and prepared in accordance with Jewish law, but in order to invoke the clause the person claiming it must be licensed by the local Board of Shechita.
That is a test to which a Gentile court can pay attention, because it is a test
404
which does not involve any considerations which it is quite incompetent to discuss. Nobody knows that better than I do, because professionally I have from time to time had to advise on, and even to conduct, cases involving questions of this kind; and the embarrassment and difficulty which a Gentile or Christian counsel has in discussing such matters need not be emphasised. The same must be true of Christian or Gentile magistrates. It is far better to take the licence of the Jewish Board as valid on the face of it and not to make any inquiries behind it.
If I were to redraft the noble Lord's alternative Amendment, with the object of getting something which would do (this, frankly, will not do), I should be in the position that if, in the alternative Amendment, I proposed that meat had actually to be prepared in accordance with the ritual provisions of Jewish law in order to qualify as Kosher meat within the meaning of the Act, it would be open to anybody to raise before the magistrates' court (which would be composed, presumably, of Gentiles, with an inspector or prosecuting counsel who will not be conversant with Jewish law) the question as to whether the particular meat was, in fact, killed in the right way. This would involve these questions being ventilated in public in a way we consider undesirable. Supposing, for example, the wrong kind of knife is used. I suppose that, if the alternative were accepted, that would be a matter which could be ventilated in public, and personally I should have thought it undesirable from every point of view that that should be the case.
Under the Government Amendment, in order to invoke the clause the proper licence must be in force. If, for any reason, the person claiming the benefit of the clause has been flouting Jewish law, as distinct from an inadvertent breach of it—which could happen—he will have his licence taken away and Clause 29 (1) (a) will not be available to him. On the other hand, if I accept the alternative Amendment, even if the licence is in force, the meat will not qualify as Kosher unless the objective provisions of Jewish law have been observed. I cannot believe that an Act of this Parliament should make it possible for questions of that kind to be ventilated in a Gentile

405
court. Therefore, though our sympathies are with those with whom my noble friend has been consulting, my conviction is very strong that Her Majesty's Government are right.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, and I hope that he will consider, between now and next stage of the Bill, whether something can be put in to alter the definition so that the proviso that the slaughter of animals has to be licensed by the Rabbinical Commission, as laid down in the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, shall apply.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will certainly consider anything I am asked, but on a matter of this kind I would urge that the ecclesiastical authorities concerned should make representations to the Home Office. Although I have done my best, it may be that for the purpose of these Amendments I am not the most appropriate person with whom to discuss the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move this Amendment. It relates to poultry as distinct from meat.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 20, at end insert ("killed and").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move this purely drafting and consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 39, after ("of ") insert ("Part V of").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Provisions relating to Scotland]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"(c) in section (Dispensation with observance of early closing days at certain seasons)
406
for paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) in the week next before the week in which there falls a day customarily observed in the locality as a public holiday ",
and subsection (2) shall be omitted;
(d) in section thirty-seven for subsections (3) and (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) The occupier of a shop may, in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop, dispense with compliance with subsection (1) of this section as respects the week next before any week in which there falls a day customarily observed in the locality as a public holiday, provided that he allows that assistant a whole holiday on that day and a half-holiday on a business day during the two next preceeding or succeeding weeks." "
The noble Lord said: This Amendment adapts for Scotland new provisions relating to the early closing days and assistants' half-holidays which have been introduced earlier in Government Amendments. The adaption, as your Lordships may know, is necessary because holiday arrangements in Scotland differ from those in England. Whilst in Scotland Bank Holidays, as such, are not in practice observed as general public holidays, there are no statutory provisions appointing public holidays in Scotland; they are normally fixed by the magistrates or the local authorities. It is common practice to appoint three days to observe—Spring, Victoria Day and the Autumn holiday. The days so appointed vary from place to place. The Amendment will permit the shopkeeper to dispense with early closing days in the weeks preceding days which are customarily observed in the locality as public holidays. The Amendment also provides that the weekly half-holiday may be dispensed with in the week preceding any day customarily observed in any locality as a public holiday. If that option is exercised the shop assistant must also he allowed a whole day's holiday on that day, or a half-holiday in each one of the two preceding weeks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 15, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE
GOODS WHOSE SALE IS PERMISSIBLE AFTER 1 P.M. ON EARLY CLOSING DAY

PART II
GOODS WHOSE SALE IS PERMISSIBLE UNTIL LATER HOUR OR, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT LIMIT OF TIME
3. Mineral waters and other non-intoxicating drinks.
4. Sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery.
5. Ice-cream (with or without wafers or edible containers).
6. Milk and cream, not including tinned or dried milk or cream, but including clotted cream whether sold in tins or otherwise.
7. Tobacco and smokers' requisites.
8. Newspapers, periodicals, magazines, guidebooks, picture postcards and photographs.
9. Bread.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved to add to paragraph 9: "and flour confectionery." The noble Lord said: Under the Bill a shop can stay open on the early closing day for the sale of bread, but flour confectionery cannot be sold unless the shop is registered under Clause 11. Your Lordships will remember that this is a matter on which we had considerable discussion on a previous occasion. In view of the representations then made on both sides of the Committee my right honourable friend has decided that flour confectionery should be added to the First Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 20, at end insert ("and flour confectionery").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I cannot allow this concession to go without some word of thanks. I am sure that the Government are pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, can now eat his currant bun, but I suspect that the real reason why the Government gave way and put up the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to admit their failure is that the pressure of Scotland was too much, because under the Bill they could not even have bought a bap.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Or a bannock.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This is an Amendment which we have partly discussed already during to-day's Sitting. It
408
was one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on a previous occasion, and in the light of what the noble Lord then said my right honourable friend has given further consideration to the matter, with the result that this Amendment is now on the Order Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 20, at end insert—
("10. Mechanically propelled vehicles, caravans and trailers.").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to thank the noble Lord, in spite of the fact that earlier this evening he thought that I was looking his gift horse in the mouth. I am grateful to the noble Lord because it will mean that a number of foolish anomalies will now be removed and service can now be given to the vehicle-using public at times when they require such service.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.13 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to Part II:
"10. Flowers.
11. Fresh fruit and fresh vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
The noble Lord said: I hope that I am right in saying that these items have been left out of the Schedule by mistake. From a long list of goods, whose sale is permissible until a late hour, in certain circumstances, flowers, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables are omitted. Yet in the Third Schedule, in the list of goods whose sale is permissible in England and Wales on Sunday until 7 p.m., or other time fixed by local authority are
"Flowers.
Fresh, frozen or dried fruit and fresh, frozen or dried vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
I conclude that flowers and fresh fruit and vegetables were included in the Third Schedule because they are perishable, and that it was convenient for many people to purchase them for the purpose of taking them to hospitals and places of that kind. My Amendment seeks to put them back into the First Schedule, from which they seem to have been omitted.
Surely they are just as perishable on the half-day as they are on the Sunday, and if there is need for flowers and fresh fruit and vegetables to be purchased out

409
of hours on Sunday, the need is equally there on weekdays. I see no reason why they are left out. It is a small matter, but I hope that for the convenience of the public, of those who have to visit hospitals or have the unfortunate duty of visiting cemeteries, it will be possible to purchase cut flowers on weekdays in the same way as it is on Sundays. I hope that the noble Viscount will reinsert these items. I have tried to help him by omitting from my original Amendment the dried produce, which I cannot say perishes. But the others I can say perish. I hope the noble Viscount will either accept this Amendment, or duplicate in the First Schedule the provisions of the Third Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 20 at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: As the noble Lord has said, in this Amendment he seeks to exclude frozen and dried fruit and vegetables. I have no doubt that his intention is to confine the exemption mainly to florists' and greengrocers' shops, but there are some grocers and mixed shops that sell fresh fruit and vegetables. Again here, as my noble and learned friend has done, I have to thank the noble Lord for the trouble to which he has gone to try to find a compromise. Unfortunately, as the Government see it, the Amendment is open to the serious objection that it creates an anomaly; that is, that on the early closing day greengrocers would then he allowed to sell some of their goods but not others, such as boxes of dates and frozen fruit, which they commonly sell. This is just the kind of anomaly the Government are anxious to avoid, so far as possible. Perhaps I can say this to the noble Lord: that we do realise that there may be a problem, and we are continuing to apply our minds to it, in the light of what the noble Lord has just said.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. But when he speaks of an anomaly, would he not grant me that the anomaly is there on the Sunday, when precisely the same thing can happen? Flowers and fresh fruit may be sold by greengrocers and by other establishments on Sunday, but the same establishments are not permitted to sell those goods on an early closing day. So when the noble Lord
410
talks about anomalies, it is he who is creating them, and not I. I am trying to relieve him of the anomaly he has created by making one law for the after-hour opening on Sunday, and he will not concede the same law for the after-hour opening on the weekday. However, the dawn of enlightenment is breaking. Let me be satisfied with that; and between now and the passage of this Bill through Parliament I expect to see provision for fruit, flowers and fresh vegetables to be sold on Sundays and on weekdays under precisely the same conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Transactions permissible in Great Britain at any Time on Weekdays and in England and Wales at any Time on Sundays]:
9. The sale of guide-books, reproductions of works of art, picture postcards, photographs, photographic films or photographic plates or souvenirs—

(a) at a museum or art gallery; or

(b) at a place of natural beauty or historic interest, any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, or an aquarium, to the extent that the local authority within whose area the place, gardens or aquarium is or are situate certify that the sale of the things aforesaid is desirable in the interests of the public; or

(c) on a vessel, while it is engaged in carrying passengers; or

(d) at the Festival Pleasure Gardens as defined by the Festival Pleasure Gardens Act, 1952.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to paragraph 9:
"or (e) at any garden or park under the control of a public authority."
The noble Earl said. The object of this Amendment is to limit the scope of an Amendment which I moved during the Committee stage of the Bill, as I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will remember. My earlier Amendment aimed at excluding from the Sunday trading restrictions open spaces as well as parks and gardens owned by local authorities, and this Amendment limits the exclusion to parks and gardens. I should like to illustrate my case by pointing out what would happen in London if the Bill were passed without this Amendment. Your Lordships will

411
remember that the Bill repeals the provisions in the Shops Act, 1950, which allow the sale on Sundays of guide books, and so on, in parks and gardens if they are run by local authorities.
I have asked the London County Council to give me some figures about the number of these guide-books which the public like to buy in order to get greater enjoyment from going about the London parks and gardens. Last summer, between May and August, 23,400 copies of guide-books relating to the London County Council's parks and gardens were sold. Of course, there are no figures for the number of these guide-books sold on Sundays, but as people have more time for going out at week-ends it is to be assumed that a large number were in fact sold on Sundays. It seems ridiculous that this Bill should prohibit the public from doing something which they have been accustomed and authorised to do in the last seven years since the Shops Act, 1950, was passed.
Moreover, pursuing the example of London as the largest local authority concerned, I would point out that the London County Council have been selling descriptive leaflets about places of great interest, such as Holland House, which was acquired after the war, and Marble Hill House, which has been in the hands of the London County Council for a much longer time and is, as your Lordships will remember, a most interesting 18th century house. It is obviously much more agreeable for visitors to be able to have a history and an explanation of the whole background of the historic places they visit in London. Unless the Government can give a convincing argument for putting an end to this practice it seems unjust to end it. It is undesirable that the public should be deprived of the extra pleasure that a guide-book or catalogue to these places can give them.
This Amendment goes rather farther than the existing practice, in that it would allow the sale of guide-books and catalogues during the week after the hours at which shops have to close. In the summer months people like to go out into the gardens, such as Battersea Park or Victoria Park, and enjoy the fresh air in the evening until quite late. They often sit around listening to bands and enjoying the music. It seems ridiculous that after a certain hour when shops close they
412
should not be able to buy a guide-book in the particular garden they happen to be enjoying. I hope that the Government will consider this point, which applies, of course, to all local authorities but which I am illustrating by reference to London. They will otherwise be depriving the public of a special satisfaction which they get at the present time. Indeed, unless there is some very convincing argument for prohibiting the sale of guide-books to parks and gardens in London and other large towns, it will be difficult to justify the omission of a provision of this kind from this Schedule of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 34, at end insert ("or (e) at any garden or park under the control of a public authority ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will, indeed, agree on behalf of the Government to consider this Amendment. I have been much impressed by what the noble Earl has said, and I will ask him on that assurance to withdraw the present Amendment. It arises, as he said, out of a previous Amendment with the same object which he moved on the Committee stage. I then took what was, in substance, a drafting objection. Probably he had the same object in view, but I pointed out that his Amendment was too widely drawn, because it would cover a number of open spaces where it was undesirable to have opening outside closing hours.
The only thing which will not do in the present Amendment is that the words "public authority" are too widely drawn, because there are many authorities that come within that definition. Indeed, there is some doubt as to what authorities come within the definition, strange as it may seem. The words "local authority", which are the obvious alteration, have a special meaning in this Bill by virtue of Clause 49, which has to be read with this particular provision. If, therefore, the noble Earl will take it that his points will be carefully considered—and so far as I am concerned I confess frankly that he has made his case, although that last observation is a personal one—and will not press his Amendment, I will assure him that it will be so considered.
9.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged for the noble Viscount's assurance that he accepts the principle of my

413
Amendment, because I am certain that he will be much more ingenious in drafting an Amendment than I could be. I appreciate his objections to the drafting of the present Amendment. I hope he will be willing to ask his advisers to consult the local authorities between now and the next stage of the Bill. They may between them be able to work out a satisfactory formula. I am certain that it will be much appreciated by the general public if a provision of this kind can be included in the Bill at a late stage. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment, I think, requires little to commend it. It was, in its origin and genesis, a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to add the words
"or of parts of, or accessories to, caravans or trailers."
Our view is that it would improve the Bill, and my right honourable friend therefore desires that this Amendment should be incorporated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 38, at end insert ("or of parts of, or accessories to, caravans or trailers.").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Schedule, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD MATHERS: Before we part with this Schedule, I should like to raise a point with regard to paragraph 2:
"The sale of intoxicating liquor."
I wonder how a paragraph of this kind got into this Shops Bill. Is this not a matter for licensing legislation? The heading of the Second Schedule is:
"Transactions permissible in Great Britain at any time on weekdays and in England and Wales at any time on Sundays."
That seems to me to raise the question of Sunday closing in Wales. There is Sunday closing in Wales, however much it may be infringed by the way in which the clubs in Wales are taking the place of public-houses. The question remains: how does an item like this get into this Schedule?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I can allay the noble Lord's fears in this matter, although, as in the case of many other perfectly legitimate points, I am to some extent taken by surprise by the particular
414
point which the noble Lord raised. As this is a very complex measure, I hope he will forgive me if I do not give an absolutely conclusive answer. While he was speaking, I gave the matter my consideration and I hope he will feel that the view I have formed is probably the right one. I think the noble Lord has been misled by the heading of the Second Schedule, which reads:
"Transactions permissible in Great Britain at any time on weekdays and in England and Wales at any time on Sundays."
The real thing to look at, to see what is the effect of the Schedule, is not the heading, any more than the side notes, but the clauses in the body of the Bill to which the Schedule relates. In this case the clauses to which the Schedule relates are, respectively, Clauses 14 and 22. As the noble Lord will see, the form of words used in Clause 14 is:
"The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall not render unlawful the effecting, on a weekday of any of the transactions mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act or the keeping open, at any time on a weekday, of a shop for that purpose."
The words of Clause 22, which is the other relevant clause, are these:
"The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall not render unlawful
(a) the effecting, on Sunday, of any of the transactions mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act or the keeping open on Sunday, of a shop for that purpose…"
I think that, if the noble Lord will consider the matter, he will see it has this effect. The Second Schedule only provides, if it is read with the relevant clauses, as it must be for the purpose of giving it legal effect, that the Bill itself does not render unlawful transactions mentioned in the Second Schedule. But it does not render anything lawful either. The purpose of the Schedule, read with the clauses, is exactly what the noble Lord would have; that is to say, intoxicants are a matter for the licensing law and not for this Bill. If I am right, as I think I probably am—it does sometimes happen that I am—the view taken by the draftsman of the Bill is exactly that which the noble Lord would have him take.
LORD MATHERS: I should like to have this put more definitely and authoritatively than the noble Viscount has thought fit to put it now, and I would ask him if he would be kind enough to

415
look at the matter and put himself on an absolutely sure foundation before we part with the Bill as a whole.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will take it from me that if I have made any error in my construction I will communicate with him and explain the error, but I feel sufficiently confident that I am right about this to offer to confess my errors if I have made any.
Second Schedule, as amended, 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]:
On Question, Whether the Third Schedule shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I raised a point on the Third Schedule during the Committee stage, and I wonder whether the noble Viscount has given his mind to it in the meantime—it concerns paragraph 8. The point, I think, is rather appropriate, on account of the matter raised by Lord Strathclyde with regard to the proposed Amendment of Lord Lucas of Chilworth on the First Schedule, in which he wanted to include fresh fruit and flowers. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that it would create anomalies because greengrocers sell dates and dried fruits, as well as fruit and flowers. This part of the Third Schedule includes frozen or dried fruit and vegetables as well as fresh fruit and vegetables. Frozen and dried fruit and vegetables can be sold in grocers' shops, as well as by greengrocers. Grocers sell any number of things besides these particular articles. It makes the Bill much more difficult to enforce and, from the point of view of the local authorities, introduces a very big obstacle. It might not be going too far to say that the Bill might become unenforceable in this respect. Apart from that, it offers an almost irresistible temptation to break the law. I mentioned this matter on Committee stage. I know that the noble and learned Viscount has been burdened with an enormous number of comments and criticisms, and I shall not take it amiss if he has omitted to consider the matter; but if he has, I should be obliged for his views on it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I may as well, as I was invited to do at an earlier stage, "come clean" on this matter. It had escaped my notice that I had been asked to look into it, and I must therefore undertake to write to the noble Earl and give him my views, because I cannot give him an offhand explanation. It is rather intricate. I am always afraid of my offhand explanations. They are not always right, even though they are not always wrong.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Provisions as to Exercise of order-making Powers of Local Authorities]:
9.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have some rather good news for your Lordships, if your Lordships will accept it from me: that this and, in fact, all the other Amendments standing in my name are consequential Amendments necessitated by the Government's previous Amendments. Therefore, I do not propose to speak to them but simply beg to move them.
Amendments moved—
Page 57, line 23, leave out ("five") and insert ("six")
Page 57, line 24, at end insert—
("(2) A provision of an order that alters a pair of days previously specified for the purposes of section two of this Act must have been approved by the votes polled, on a poll taken for the purpose, of a majority of the persons who, severally, either—

(a) were, on the relevant day, the occupiers of shops as respects which the pair of days so specified is altered by that provision; or

(b) had, during the six months ending with the relevant day, regularly carried on, from stalls or vehicles situate on particular cites within the area to which that provision extends, retail trade or business of a class which, if it had been carried on in a shop within that area, would have made the shop one falling within head (a) of this subparagraph,

and were entitled to vote on the poll:
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to any provision made by a local authority in the exercise of powers conferred on them by virtue of subsection (1) of section thirty of this Act in so far as that provision extends to any area as respects which the

417
authority have not previously exercised those powers.")
Page 57, line 26, leave out ("one, three or four") and insert ("three")
Page 57, line 32, after ("area") insert ("being shops")
Page 58, line 6, leave out from ("limited") to ("to") in line 8.
Page 58, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) A provision of an order that makes, varies or revokes such provision as is authorised by section four of this Act must have been approved by the votes polled, on a poll taken for the purpose, of a majority of the persons who, severally, either—

(a) were, on the relevant day, the occupiers of shops in the area to which that provision of the order extends; or

(b) had, during the six months ending with the relevant day, regularly carried on retail trade or business from stalls or vehicles situate on particular sites within the area aforesaid;

and were entitled to vote on the poll.")
Page 58, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and (4).
Page 59, line 35, leave out ("date") and insert ("day").
Page 60, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) A provision of an order that makes, varies or revokes such provision as is authorised by paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section twenty of this Act must have been approved by the votes polled, on a poll taken for the purpose, of a majority of the persons who, severally, either—

(a) were, on the relevant day, the occupiers of shops situate within the area to Which that provision of the order extends, being shops where retail trade or business consisting in the selling of goods
418
of a kind to which that provision relates was carried on on that day; or

(b) had, during the six months ending with the relevant day, regularly carried on, from stalls or vehicles situate on particular sites within the area aforesaid, retail trade or business consisting in the selling of such goods as aforesaid;

and were entitled to vote on the poll.").—(Viscount Hailsham).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.