Lords Sitting of 28 March 1968

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
The Lord Hinton of Bankside—Took the Oath.

SPEED LIMIT ENFORCEMENT
3.5 p.m.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the construction of road traps, similar to those recently used to disinfect vehicles at boundaries of foot-and-mouth infected areas, as a means of enforcing the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in selected country villages.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): No. my Lords. We have studied a number of similar suggestions in the past, and there is a risk that devices of this kind might cause more accidents than they would save.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for replying to my Question, but may I ask whether he is aware of the really appalling conditions under which many people in these villages, perhaps a yard from the main road, live? In these villages heavy industrial traffic passes at anything up to 50 m.p.h. with complete impunity. Does he not think that what I have suggested would be a very cheap and effective way of enforcing the speed limit, and one, moreover, which would reduce the burden on the members of our already overstretched police force, who could then he diverted to more useful and important work?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it would depend upon what type of device
1118
was used whether it would prove cheaper or more expensive; but I would assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is very much concerned with this problem, particularly as it affects villages on main roads. There is to be a major White Paper on speed limit policy issued quite shortly, and certainly the question of villages will be covered in that White Paper.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, has my noble friend heard that something of this sort is in use in France, and has been in use there for many years? One goes through a sort of dip in the road on either side of a village, and that is used to slow the traffic down. If my noble friend wants additional information, he can get it from the French punts et chaussées.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am aware of that, and I am also aware of the ridge type of device that is to be found in some of the American air bases in this country. But I think our experience is that this type of device in fact increases the possibility of accidents quite appreciably.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is not only a question of villages on high roads, but that there are plenty of villages well off the high roads where the speed limit is broken not, only by heavy traffic but by young gentlemen on motor-cycles going at anything up to 60 m.p.h. with almost complete impunity?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am well aware of the points the noble Lord has raised, and I hope that he mill feel some satisfaction when this major White Paper on speed limits is produced.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, rather than thinking in terms of more and more restrictions, would it not be better if the Government thought of producing the sort of roads and by-passes which British industry needs?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords, if we had the money and Parliament felt it right to provide them.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend not think that if more and wider roads were provided that would bring more cars on to those roads, they would travel at a still higher

1119
speed, and there would be still more accidents?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it might well be.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, could the noble Lord give some undertaking that while speed limits are certainly necessary they will be rationalised before any desperate steps are taken to enforce them in the way suggested?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord clearly did not hear my answer to the first supplementary question, which was that there is to be a major White Paper on speed limit policy. I think the noble Lord will find his answer there.

BANK HOLIDAYS AND PAY AGREEMENTS
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, I beg leave 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, in making the recent bank holiday proclamations, they considered the many labour agreements which include provision for overtime or other premium rates to be paid for all work performed on bank holidays.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the terms of agreements relating to holiday remuneration vary. Some specify particular days, but others refer also in more general terms to public holidays. It was not the Government's intention that March 15 and 16 should be treated as bank holidays for any purpose other than to close the foreign exchange markets and the Stock Exchange.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him this supplementary question? Did the proclamation specifically state that this was not Her Majesty's Government's intention?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it was not possible to deal in the statement with all the consequential matters which might arise, but it stated that the banks were being asked to provide their domestic customers with their normal
1120
requirements, and I think most people interpreted that in the spirit of the proclamation.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, may I ask a further supplementary question? Then are Her Majesty's Government relying on the good will of people not to enforce what could perhaps be considered a legal right?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the information that I have is that employer and employee organisations are interpreting this in a common-sense way. If there was a question of any legal argument, it would of course fall to the courts to decide what liabilities might arise.

ADEN: PROTECTION OF BRITISH INTERESTS
3.12 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make a Statement on recent events in the former Aden territory, particularly about the safety of British nationals, and developments in the refinery installations.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the President of the Republic said publicly on March 25 that a group of people had, in his words, "wanted to take a certain position", and that a number of arrests made on March 20 had been made in the name but without the knowledge of the National Liberation Front. He reaffirmed, however, that the National Liberation Front was in complete control of the situation.
On the second part of the Question, no violence has been reported and there has been no threat to the British community or to British property, including the refinery. The refinery is operating normally, but below full normal capacity because of the closure of the Suez Canal.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply, especially in view of the recent conflicting reports. In view of the alignment of the Republic of South Yemen

1121
with the Communist bloc, does my noble friend consider the British Government's grant-in-aid of £9 million to have been well spent? Does he also consider it fair that the British taxpayer should now be burdened with any further financial responsibility in that area?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, when my noble friend speaks of the relations of the South Yemen with the Communist bloc, I think he is basing his supplementary question on a hypothesis with which I could not entirely agree. Although the Soviet Union has a small diplomatic mission in Aden and there have been a number of visits by Russians, including a current one by a military delegation, there is no information to show that the Russians have agreed to provide substantial aid or that the South Yemen Government have offered any facilities to the Soviet Union. I think the basic premise that the South Yemen Government is in some way closely aligned with the Communist bloc is possibly a false one, and certainly a premature one.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the people of the former Aden territories are now facing even greater dangers than they faced under colonialist rule, have the Government now abandoned all hope that the Republic of South Yemen can become an independent Sovereign State under the Commonwealth?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think this goes very wide of the noble Lord's original Question. If he cares to put down a Question in the new sense I will certainly answer it.

POLICE AND PUBLIC: INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further guidance they intend issuing to chief officers of police, so that any doubts they may have about their duty and responsibility under Section 49(3) of the Police Act 1964 may be cleared up.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords,
1122
following a recent undertaking given in connection with the case of Frederick Charles Luckhurst, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is seeking the advice of the Attorney General on the possible need for further guidance to chief officers of police on the circumstances in which they should consult the Director of Public Prosecutions.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would he not agree that there is some urgency in this matter? Is he aware that there are some strong feelings in the police force about the case of ex-P.C. Luckhurst? Is he further aware that the acting Chief Constable of Buckinghamshire did not, in fact, comply with the terms of this section of the Act and that there is a strong feeling in the police that this matter should be dealt with urgently, so that chief constable can know what this section of the Act means?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am aware of the concern in the police and in general about this case and of the need for urgency, and so is my right honourable friend. He will take what action he regards as necessary when he receives the advice for which he is asking. But with regard to the precise application of Section 49(3) of the Act to this this case, I would remind my noble friend that Detective Chief Superintendent Brennan, the officer appointed to conduct the special investigation, considered that the acting Chief Constable of Buckinghamshire was under no compulsion to treat the case as a complaint under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is, however, a strong conflict of opinion about this; and that many leading people in the legal profession believe he was under a strong obligation to report the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions? In view of the doubt about this matter would not my noble friend press the Home Secretary to institute an independent inquiry into the case of ex-P.C. Luckhurst?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is precisely in order to remove any such doubts as the one to which my noble friend referred that my right honourable friend is seeking the advice of the Attorney General. I am bound to say, having studied the facts and the circulars that

1123
were issued to the police in 1964 and in 1967, that it is quite clear that the acting Chief Constable was acting within his rights in this matter. With regard to my noble friend's suggestion of an independent inquiry, I will inform my right honourable friend of his views.

MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/ WALLASEY) BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the following Amendment: On page 5, leave out Clause 8. The reason for asking your Lordships to leave out this clause is that the promoters regard it as unnecessary and that, moreover, as it involves a charge, if this clause were not left out before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House it would infringe the privileges of another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out Clause 8.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken On one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill through its remaining stages this day, and that the Bill be taken before the Shops (Sunday Trading) (No. 2) Bill.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. LIBRARY
The Report from the Library Sub-Committee for the year 1967 and two recommendations were laid before the Committee and agreed to.
2. ADMINISTRATION
The Committee agreed in principle to the installation in due course of an automatic Telephone System to replace the manual system now in use.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. Clive Anthony John Mitchell as a Clerk in the Parliament Office from March 11, 1968.
4. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:—

(a) D.E.O. (67) (Pay) No. 30—London Weighting;

(b) D.E.O. (67) (Pay) No. 31—Central Pay increase (low paid staff) 1967;

(c) D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 1—Typing Grades—Revised Scales of Pay and Proficiency Allowances;

(d) D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 2—Personal Secretary Class—Revised Scales of Pay;

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee sanctioned a consequential revision in an award under the Superannuation Act, 1965, to Mr. H. A. Martins, a Senior Office Assistant, who retired on November 13, 1967.
5. DOORKEEPERS
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a re-arrangement within the grade of Doorkeepers. The Committee authorised the scales of pay consequent upon the revised grading.
6. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1967–68.
The Committee approved the presentation of a Supplementary Estimate for the year 1967–68.
7. SUPERANNUATION AWARDS
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following Superannuation Awards under the Superannuation Act 1965:—

(a) Death Gratuity to legal personal representative of the late Douglas Rupert Woolnough, Doorkeeper, who died on February 17, 1968.

(b) Gratuity to Mrs. Mary Maher, Housemaid, on her retirement on December 15. 1967.

8. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised the payment of Attendance fees to temporary Reporters when the House of Lords sits after 10.30 p.m. with effect from February 29, 1968.
9. NIGHT DUTY ALLOWANCE
The Committee authorised the payment of night duty allowances to eligible members of the staff of the House of Lords with effect from February 29, 1968, on occasions when the House sits after 12.30 a.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS (REVOCATION) REGULATIONS 1968
3.20 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM rose to move, That the Draft Civil Defence Corps (Revocation) Regulations 1968 laid before the House on February 29 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will meet with your Lordships' approval, and the convenience of the House, if, in moving the Civil Defence Corps (Revocation) Regulations 1968, I deal at the same time with the three other sets of Regulations on the Order Paper. I shall be pleased, of course, to do my best to answer any questions you may address to me on any or all of the Orders.
We had a very full debate yesterday on the Government's decision to disband the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service, when I explained in some detail the reasons for the Government's action and the effect this had on our Civil Defence preparations. During the debate at least one noble Lord alleged that the Government had some sinister purpose in presenting these Orders after the Civil Defence debate and that the procedure allowed insufficient time for adequate consideration. I reject both suggestions. They are being taken to-day instead of earlier in the week merely because I wished to avoid detracting from the free-
1126
ranging debate which we had on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, yesterday. This was discussed through the usual channels and welcomed as a sensible and helpful suggestion. Yesterday we dealt with the principle and effects of the Government's decision. To-day I ask your Lordships to deal with the Statutory Orders implementing the necessary changes arising from that decision. As for the suggestion that these Orders have been, as it were, "sprung" on your Lordships, I would remind you that they were laid before the House on February 29 so that your Lordships have had four complete weeks in which to consider them.
My Lords, the purpose of the Orders now before you is to relieve local authorities of their present statutory obligation to maintain the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service. This is the only way to ensure that the savings, which the Government have decided are necessary, can be achieved. The Civil Defence Corps was established in 1949 primarily to assist local authorities to perform the Civil Defence functions placed upon them by Regulations made under Civil Defence Act 1948. The Corps is a national body, established by a Warrant signed by the Secretary of State, but it is administered locally. Under the Civil Defence Corps Regulations 1949 it is the duty of county, county borough and London borough councils, and certain other specified authorities, to organise divisions of the Corps. There are 178 such divisions in England and Wales. The active strength of the Corps in Great Britain as a whole was 58,700 in September, 1967, a figure substantially lets than the 75,000 I mentioned yesterday which was in effect the establishment figure. In addition, there were 10,900 fully trained members on reserve. Noble Lords will have noticed the special mention of Scunthorpe in the Order. That is because Scunthorpe did not become a Corps authority until 1951, when, at its own request, it was added to authorities listed in the Schedule to the 1949 Regulations, and now Civil Defence (Scunthorpe) Regulations 1951 need to be separately included in the revoking Regulations.
The Civil Defence (Fire Services) Regulations amend the existing Regulations, made in 1949, which placed an obligation upon fire authorities to employ

1127
persons for the purposes of civil defence and, in particular, to enrol auxiliary firemen, additional to the normal establishment of their fire brigades. The new Regulations remove this obligation from fire authorities but will enable them to employ additional persons for civil defence purposes when authorised to do so by the Secretary of State. This last provision is necessary because there are now employed under the existing Regulations a number of regular fire service officers, and although most of them have been employed on helping to recruit, train and organise the auxiliaries, some of them have been working on planning for a war emergency. Since planning is to continue, there will be a need to retain the services of some of these officers for this purpose, and the Regulations accordingly make provision for the Secretary of State to authorise their continued employment. It is not the intention of my right honourable friend to authorise the employment of auxiliaries after March 31, and fire authorities will be required to cease to employ those who are now auxiliary members of their brigades on that date.
The two similar Orders for Scotland now before your Lordships have the same effect of relieving local authorities in Scotland of the statutory obligations in respect to the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service. With this brief explanation of the purpose of these Orders, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence Corps (Revocation) Regulations 1968 laid before the House on February 29 be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, after the speech which I delivered in the hearing of the noble Lord Stonham, towards the end of our debate last night, he will not be surprised to hear that we find these Orders objectionable. Indeed, this is, in the minds of many of us, the greatest disaster in the Government's Civil Defence policy, that they are throwing aside the volunteers. The effect of these Orders is to deprive the local authorities of their power to maintain the Civil Defence Corps. I think that a very large number of your Lordships, and not only noble Lords on this side of the House, will thoroughly agree
1128
with my noble friend Lord Ridley who said yesterday:
"…once you have lost the volunteers who have so loyally supported many previous Governments for years … you can never build up the force again. I believe that to have thrown this volunteer spirit out of the window may well be one of the greatest sins which future generations will lay at the door of this Government.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/3/68, col. 1081.]
The Civil Defence Corps is to come to an end, according to this Order, on Sunday. My prophecy is that it will never, as my noble friend said, be possible to regain the volunteers and to build up a similar volunteer force again. From all quarters of your Lordships' House the strongest views were expressed to the Government yesterday on their policy, and they must have noticed with concern as well as with regret that there was not a single Member of your Lordships' House, even from their own Back Benches, who was willing to get up and defend and support the Government Front Bench in these matters. The question therefore arises, what your Lordships' House should do.
I should dearly like to advise my noble friends to vote against this Order, but I must think out and express to your Lordships' House what the effect of doing so would be. So far as I can judge—and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will tell me if I am wrong—the effect would be to leave the local authorities with a duty to maintain the Civil Defence Corps. At the same time, there would be no money with which to do so because—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord assuming that this would be the position if these Orders were not carried?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Yes, my Lords. If these Orders were rejected, if I were to advise my noble friends to vote against and reject this principal Order—because I think the debate could well take place on this principal Order—the effect, so far as I can see it, would be to leave the local authorities carrying an obligation to maintain a Civil Defence Corps but with no money with which to carry that out. I think that your Lordships on both sides of the House accept that we are in no position to provide money or to vote money which is withheld by another place. We should therefore be putting the local authorities in

1129
a position of some embarrassment. They have already been put in a position of great embarrassment by the Government. They have been told by the Government that they are to have no more than £1 million a year to carry out such Civil Defence duties as remain to them, and out of that £1 million in the first year—and I think this is a most unfair proposal on the part of the Government—they are to find a quarter of a million for redundancy payments to those whom they are no longer being allowed to employ.
The principal plea of a number of us in the debate yesterday was that the Government should make more money available to local authorities, because, as we know, all local authorities who are concerned in this matter, regardless of their political control, are at one in representing to the Government that they cannot make a success even of the limited duties that are left to them unless they are empowered to employ rather more persons on Civil Defence planning and other duties than would be possible for them with the very restricted amount of money which the Government are prepared to let them spend.
If I thought that it would be effective, if I thought that we should be able to restore the Civil Defence volunteer force to its old position before the Government made their disastrous announcement on January 16, I would advise my noble friends to vote against these Orders. But I fear that to reject these Orders would not have that effect. I fear that it would only add to the embarrassment of the local authorities, who have already too little money assigned to them to carry out the duties which the Government are leaving to them. We should be unable to vote them any more money and unable to authorise them to spend any more money, and it would impose an additional duty on them.
In those circumstances, much as I hate and despise the policy which these Orders reflect, and keenly as noble Lords in all quarters of the House showed yesterday their disapproval of the Government's policy, I think that my advice to my noble friends must be not to oppose these Regulations to-day, because I do not think that that would be effective. What is needed—I wish to repeat before I sit down—in this uncertain situation which
1130
the Government have created are two modifications of policy. First, the local authorities should be authorised to spend rather more on their own Civil Defence staffs so that they will have the men with whom they can implement the policies which the Government wish them to implement; and, secondly, the Government should make a small amount of money available so that those members of the Civil Defence Corps throughout the country who are dead keen to continue to keep together and train together, to ensure that they are still in a position to serve their country, will be able to do that.
They wish to do this entirely unpaid, but they are as well aware as I am that inevitably some slight expenditure would fall on the local authorities or on them-selves if this were to be done. It will be a tragedy if the desire of these volunteers to continue to perform unpaid Civil Defence service is frustrated because the Government are not willing to provide even a very small amount of money, as it were to lubricate the system, with the volunteers providing all the main fuel for it.
Those are the two main demands within the policy which the Government have insisted upon that were made from many quarters of the House yesterday. If the Government can help on this matter, then they will materially lessen the ill-feeling that has been caused by this announcement of policy. If we could achieve that, we certainly should have achieved something to-day. I find myself unwilling to refrain from voting against the Orders as such, but, in view of the explanation I have given why I think that to throw them out would only cause embarrassment to the local authorities and be ineffective in achieving our own purpose, I must stand by what I have said.
3.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor speaks for all of us on these Benches, but, with your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to say something from one single Back Bench. I understand perfectly the arguments which my noble friend has put forward and which have been concurred in by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as to the economic effect of declining to give approval to these Orders, but from this elevation, not

1131
having the wisdom of those who sit on the Front Bench, I find the situation almost incredible. Perhaps this innocence is mere ignorance.
It seemed to me that at the moment, until these Orders for revocation are approved, the law is that certain measures shall be kept in force—that is, the statutory obligations on the county councils remain to retain in being the Civil Defence Corps and the Fire Auxiliary Service. If the Orders are not approved, we shall find that these statutory regulations remain in force. That is the law. But the Government now tell us that they will not provide money to enable the law to be carried out. It is not clear to me how any Government is in a position to do anything of the kind. That seems to me to be placing Government above the law.
I do not wish to let this matter go through without making clear the strength of opinion among the Back Benchers on this side of the House. What is it exactly that we are doing? The debate is over and I have not the slightest intention of rehearsing what was said yesterday by myself and other noble Lords. I should like to speak through the mouths of others, and the mouths I wish to speak through, because they are well worth speaking through, and I have the owners' permission to do so, are those of my noble friends Lord Jellicoe and Lord Brooke of Cumnor. With your Lordships' permission, I will simply read seven quotations from the speeches of my two noble friends. I will do it without comment and at a reasonable speed and I will say the briefest of words at the end.
I begin with my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who said:
"I would claim that in the event of, and in the aftermath of, the almost unthinkable, a nuclear attack upon these islands, our very survival as a nation, the ability of our society, desolated and diminished though it might be, to pull itself up from the bottomless pit of nuclear horror and to recreate in these islands a society in some recognised civilised form would in the last resort turn upon the prior existence of some structure of decentralised emergency administration, practised in peacetime, adequately manned, reasonably, not lavishly, equipped and ready to be activated at the drop of a hat. I do not wish to minimise by one iota the horror which would follow a nuclear attack."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/3/63, col. 1005.]
1132
Secondly, my noble friend said:
"… should nuclear war, the unthinkable, come upon us, I believe that this new semi-policy means that the balance for this country would be tilted against a survival of our society in any recognisable form."—[col. 1011.]
I turn to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who said:
"Whatever form a future war may take, a Civil Defence organisation is imperative if we are to maintain the morale of the public under attack, and uphold their confidence.
If there is a next war—which we all pray there will not be—we must recognise that there will be no one to fulfil that responsibility, because of this Government's decision."—[col. 1093.]
Fourthly, my noble friend said:
"Civil Defence has hitherto been thought of by successive Governments as essential to the structure of our military power. If we had no effective Civil Defence, it would he known to the world that we could not risk becoming involved in a major war because our whole population would die. So our protests and our military power could be disregarded with impunity by a potential aggressor."—[col. 1094.]
Fifthly:
"An effective Civil Defence organisation could not prevent millions of casualties; that is agreed between us all. The best scientific advice, unless it has changed within the past few weeks, is that it would save the lives of millions who would otherwise die, after the nuclear exchanges were over. In other words, effective Civil Defence preparations are essential, both to make our deterrent power credible, and to save millions of lives from the holocaust, should it take place. Without effective, nationwide Civil Defence, nuclear war would be likely to mean that the British race in this island would be wiped out."—[col. 1094.]
The remaining two are rather shorter. Sixthly:
"As it is, the Home Secretary and his Cabinet colleagues are taking the guilt upon themselves for imperilling the future of the British race …"—[col. 1095.]
Seventhly:
"Can the Government say with certainty that all danger of a nuclear attack has now disappeared? Of course they cannot. Then let it be known to the country, that this is the Government that have decided to leave their people helpless in the aftermath of such a disaster."—[col. 1097.]
The economic arguments that we have heard from my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor regarding burdens to be put upon the county councils and their ability to carry them out may persuade your Lordships that, none the less, we ought to allow this to happen. But I beg your Lordships to be in no doubt what it is that you are allowing to happen. If

1133
you believe, as I do, that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor was speaking the truth when he made the last remark I quoted just now, then it is we who are allowing this to happen. Whatever may happen, I wish that nobody should be under any illusion about this. I repeat once more the noble Lord's words:
"Then let it be known, let it be known to the country, that this is the Government"—
and we shall be allowing the Government to do it—
"that have decided to leave their people 'helpless in the aftermath of such a disaster' ".
Noble Lords will vote as their wisdom and their conscience dictates.
3.42 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I am sorry that I was unable to be present yesterday for the debate. However, I should like to say a word or two in support of these Orders on behalf of certain Back-Benchers here, and to say that, in our view, they do not go far enough. I think this is a sensible move on the part of the Government; but it is a limited move. Personally, I should like to see the whole sham and facade of Civil Defence wiped out completely. It seems to me that this is like trying to clear up after an earthquake with a feather duster. That has nothing to do with the quotation read out just now by the noble Earl who has just spoken, about having some kind of emergency administration ready in the event of a disaster. I believe that this is essential. But I think, too, that to have these volunteers going through these routines has been a complete waste of time and a misguided use of their enthusiasm and energy.
I think, in short, that Civil Defence as we have looked upon it so far is "bunk", and what one ought to do is to say to these volunteers that there are many other, more positive, things they can do. I do not think there will be any shortage of them in the event of an emergency. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor; I think they will come forward again. In my view, it would be better for the country if we could direct the undoubted energy and enthusiasm of these people into some of the social work that is urgently necessary. I do not believe that the Government are leaving the country defenceless, because, in my view, the best Civil Defence lies in a non-hostile and wise
1134
foreign policy; and if that fails, then no Civil Defence can help.
3.45 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to controvert the rather narrow-minded views of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, because I feel that this country has been built up, to a large extent, by voluntary effort on the part of many people over the years. I think that to do away with the voluntary forces, with the T. & A.V.R. III (this is not included in these Orders, but it is also being abolished) the Civil Defence and the Fire Service is a most foolish action. We all hope that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is right, and that, so far as this country is concerned, there will not be a nuclear war. But we have only his word for it. Let us assume, however, that he is right, and that no one is ever going to attack these shores. I believe that we may well find ourselves in nuclear trouble by accident. Already on two occasions American bombers have crashed and nuclear bombs have, not exploded, but have, been dropped, one into the sea and the other just off the land. In both cases it cost an enormous amount of money to deal with them. There has been radioactive emission from them. If they had—which is quite possible—fallen in built-up areas, goodness knows what damage this would have caused; and at that time we should have needed these volunteer forces. It is quite certain that the regular firemen and the police would be quite incapable of dealing with a matter of that kind on their own.
The Government's defence of this proposal is on the grounds of economy—and there is no one who wishes them better than I do in economic measures in trying to cut down the money which they are expending, largely on public services. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, said yesterday, one has to relate the particular saving that is imposed to the saving as a whole by the Government. This point, for obvious reasons, was not made yesterday from either Front Bench, but it is important to me and my colleagues on these Benches. It is a fact that £200 million a year is now being expended in the defence field by the Government on obsolete weapons that will, in all probability, never be used, if the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is right—that is on the Polaris submarines. Before they are fully

1135
built and equipped, they are obsolete. The Government's Manifesto referred to doing away with the independent nuclear deterrent, but they are now spending vast sums on trying to equip it with a double warhead so that its obsolescence will become less marked. The Government are spending over £200 million a year on an obsolete weapon which contributes to general Western defence, according to the Prime Minister himself when he was Leader of the Opposition,
"as much as a pea does to an elephant".
That was the Prime Minister's expression, and he was referring to the British nuclear deterrent. In order to provide the pea to the elephant, the Government are doing away with all these voluntary efforts, which are much more likely to be needed. This will discourage the volunteer spirit.
Recently we saw an example in a bay off Korea of an American warship being captured by a small number of boats: an American warship being attacked in this way, which had not happened since sailing ship days. Why could not the American Air Force release that ship? It was because every American aircraft was equipped only with nuclear weapons: they were afraid to use them, and so could not release their own ship, because no American aircraft had conventional weapons. This is another illustration of how absurd the nuclear weapons of Britain are.
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord? It is a great pity that we did not have the benefit of this speech yesterday. At the moment we are considering an Order, and I should have thought that the noble Lord could deal with the Order under consideration.
LORD OGMORE: I was coming to the Order. I had to develop the background. With respect, I am quite in order, because the noble Lord himself, in deploying his arguments, said that this proposal was based on economic factors, and it was because we wanted to save money. I am now pointing out that the Government could save a far greater amount of money in another direction, and avoid the necessity of taking these steps, which I think are wrong. I do not see why, just because I did not make a speech yester-
1136
day on a Motion, I should not make a speech to-day on an Order. To suggest that is to me a very odd Parliamentary doctrine. Surely it is more important to speak on an Order, which may be voted on, than on a Motion.
However, I want to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. He has said—and there is of course something in what he says—that if we reject this Order and vote against it today we shall leave the local authorities in the extraordinary position of having to carry out duties and not getting any money from the Government to do so. But he also said that even the duties they will have to perform anyway they will not be able to carry out properly because they will not have enough money. I do not see that it is a very great argument against voting down these Orders to-day, if in any case they will not have enough money to carry out their duties.
In any event, I do not think that this is a point that should concern us to-day. After all, we are presented by the Government with several measures for our consideration; and we have to deal with them as they are presented to us. If as a result of our consideration we turn them down, then it becomes necessary for other consequential action to be taken by the Government, and it is their responsibility to do it. It is not our place to say, "Well, we must not do this because if we do we land the local authorities in a bit of a jam". If we turn these Orders down, it is then the Government's duty to put the matter right and to bring in the necessary measures to do so. So I honestly do not believe that the well-intentioned arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, should in any way discourage noble Lords who feel, as I do, that we ought to vote against these Orders from doing so.
3.52 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, I was not able to take part in yesterday's debate on Civil Defence, so perhaps I may detain your Lordships for two minutes while I explain why I am against the revocation of these Civil Defence Regulations. My objection has nothing to do with the voluntary spirit, which we have discussed many times in this Chamber, or with attitudes and opinions as to whether Civil Defence is "bunk" or is worth while. These revocation Orders, to my

1137
mind, involve diminution of the efficiency of the Civil Defence organisation in this country. Since we invented the aeroplane Civil Defence has been a necessary component of defence, or weapon, if you like to call it that, in this country. We had to have it in 1939 to meet the conventional attack, and we know perfectly well how badly we needed it at that time. Since the previous Labour Government authorised this country to have a nuclear deterrent force, the Civil Defence organisation has become an even more necessary component of our weapons. To do without it would be like sending an army to fight a conventional battle without its artillery or engineers. I do not believe it is right to diminish the efficiency of our Civil Defence organisation, and that is why I am against the revocation of these Regulations.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it is not my intention to continue the debate. No doubt noble Lords will agree with me that it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with whom I disagree, and the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Bourne, were not able to take part in the debate yesterday. But since your Lordships agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that we should couple with the first Order the two Scottish Orders, I feel bound to express from these Benches a Scottish view and to speak with a Scottish voice for all those who are amazed and bewildered at what has happened, all those who, like myself, believe utterly in the worthiness and worthwhile nature of voluntary effort, to say that we regard the whole action over Civil Defence as alarming and to be opposed so far as possible.
On the other hand, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said. If indeed the problems are going to be so great that the already hardly tried local authorities will be put to great difficulty, I feel that it would be a mistake to reject Orders such as these. It is, I think, right that a voice from Scotland should be added to those we have already heard, especially the voice of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, who has protested against the action the Government have taken.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? I think that we are all, or the great majority of
1138
us in this House, bitterly opposed to what the Government have done, and that at any rate the great majority of us feel that we have to keep this organisation in being. I believe that 90 per cent. of the House feel that. But I suggest to your Lordships that a great deal of the argument which has been addressed to the House, particularly by the Liberal Peer who addressed us at such length, is wholly irrelevant to the issue which is before us now.
If, by a vote, we could say to the Government, "You are to reverse your policy", that would be one thing. But we certainly are not able to do that. All we should do, if we insisted on voting this Motion down, would be to deprive the local authorities of the money which they will get, little as it is, under this measure, and we should leave them with the obligation they have but without even the modest grant the Government are offering towards it. Therefore I would beg your Lordships to address yourselves to the relevant question, while hating what the Government are doing, and not to vote for something which would only make the matter very much worse.
3.56 p.m
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I will not say one word which can be interpreted as resuming the debate which ended yesterday; and I do not think that in my original speech this afternoon commending this Order to your Lordships I said one such word, either. I spoke only about the Order. That is what I intend to do now. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has put the whole case in a nutshell, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he said that, in his view, the effect of rejecting these Orders would be to leave local authorities with a statutory obligation to maintain a Civil Defence Corps but with no money to do so. That would be precisely what any noble Lord who voted against these Orders would be doing. Do not let us make any mistake: it would not be a protest about volunteers; it would not be an effective way of showing your dislike of the Government's decision at all.
We had five and a half hours of debate in your Lordships' House yesterday on Civil Defence. I was here the whole time, and I should say that during four and a half of those hours there were not

1139
more than twenty Peers present. I only wish that we had had as many as are present now to hear all the arguments in an excellent debate. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that if these Orders were not passed it would embarrass the local authorities. I put the matter very much more strongly than that: it would put them in an impossible position. The Government of 1949 passed regulations imposing statutory obligations on local authorities, and since then successive Governments have provided Exchequer funds in order that those statutory obligations could be complied with. The present Government have said that they can no longer supply funds on the same scale, and therefore they are proposing to remove from the local authorities those statutory obligations. It is as plain as that. Therefore, I ask all noble Lords in your Lordships' House, whatever may be your feelings about the subject generally and about the desirability or otherwise of the step we are taking, who take a really responsible view of their obligations to Parliament—and I hope that that means everybody—not to oppose these Orders.
I want to say three more things. First, we agree that this step means that it would be a difficult matter, and would take some time, if the Government of the day decided that it was again necessary to enrol volunteers for something analogous to the Civil Defence Corps. The very Orders we are revoking, or proposing to revoke, did this in 1949, four years after the end of the war. It was done then. I do not think it would be impossible to do it again. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, put two questions to me. The first was whether consideration would be given to the possibility of spending more money so as to provide more staff for local authorities? These discussions are going on, and we are endeavouring to find, with them, what is necessary to carry out the continuing obligations which they are required to carry. Certainly when the necessary level of staff is agreed the question of cost will be looked at.
With regard to the second question, if only a small amount of Government money will be available, so that those who are dead keen to keep together and to train together can be held I can only
1140
say this. All over the country there are voluntary movements starting up now. Some are in a sophisticated stage, like that in Birmingham, and have not directly asked for any money. We do not wish in any way to oppose or inhibit these efforts, but we must wait and see, before entering into any kind of commitment, what emerges and what is likely to endure. When we are in a position to see that, we can look at the matter again. My Lords, apart from that I have nothing to say, except to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for the advice which he gave to your Lordships' House.
4.3 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wish just to say a few brief words on this Order. I believe it to be a miserable Order. I believe that the three Orders that follow it are miserable Orders. I believe that the policy which the Government are pursuing towards Civil Defence is both dangerous and in contradiction with the policies of previous Governments, and, what is more, with the policies of this Government. I believe that the volunteers in the Civil Defence Corps are being treated shabbily, that their loss will be a very great one, and that once they have been stood down the Government will not find it possible to stand them up again: and I believe that this is a serious matter.
It is also noticeable, as my noble friend Lord Brooke has pointed out, and very surprising, that on this important issue, which affects not only the safety but possibly the life of every single man. woman and child in this country, there was not one Member on the Benches opposite prepared to support their two Front Bench spokesmen in your Lordships' House yesterday afternoon. Admittedly the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has given his support to them to-day, but of course it was for a very different policy.
I am, however, grateful for the slight chink which I perceive the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may have opened in at least two of these doors. At least he has said that on two of the important issues which came out of our debate yesterday the Government are preserving something of an open mind, pending their discussions with the local authorities. But, all in all, I have a great deal of sympathy

1141
for my noble friend's standpoint. I should like to say how flattered I was at the quotations which he read out, although I should have been happier if he had not happened to alight upon the longest single sentence which I have ever spoken in your Lordships' House. That being so, I was glad that he gave only two quotations of mine and awarded five to my noble friend Lord Brooke.
After the debate yesterday evening I was tempted not to withdraw my own Motion and to see the Papers for which I moved brought in. I was tempted to vote to-day for the rejection of these Orders, but I have thought this matter over as carefully as I can, and I feel compelled to tell my noble friend that if he does bring this issue to a Division I shall not, regretfully, be able to support him.
There is a certain constitutional ground here which is not unimportant. The undoubted power which this House has to reject these Orders derives from an historical quirk that when the Parliament Act was enacted there was very little subordinate legislation, and that is why Orders were not brought within its scope. That being so, I believe that it behoves your Lordships to give careful consideration before taking action to reject an Order of this sort.
Such rejection would in fact be unprecedented. In the 58 years since the Parliament Act was enacted no Order requiring Affirmative Resolution has been rejected by your Lordships' House. Therefore, I believe your Lordships should feel yourselves on very solid ground before supporting my noble friend, if he does decide to bring this matter to a Division. Much as I should like to believe that he is on solid ground, I cannot bring myself to believe that he is, for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Brooke has put to your Lordships this afternoon. He has explained that rejection would cause acute embarrassment to the local authorities, and in fact would be quite ineffectual; and I thought that his arguments on that score were incontrovertible.
I believe that the doctrine put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that your Lordships should have no real thought for the consequences of your action is at least debatable—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, it would be debatable, but I did not say that. I said that if the Government brought forward a proposition to us we were entitled to reject it, and it was for them to put right the consequences of that rejection.
EARL JELLICOE: I believe that in these particular circumstances, your Lordships should have regard to the consequences which would befall and the acute embarrassment in which rejection of the Order would place the local authorities. These are the reasons why I hope that my noble friend will not press this to a Division and why, if he does so, I shall regretfully be unable to support him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS (SCOTLAND) (REVOCATION) REGULATIONS 1968
4.10 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the second Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence Corps (Scotland) (Revocation) Regulations 1968 laid before the House on February 29 be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (FIRE SERVICES) REGULATIONS 1968
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Civil defence (Fire Services) Regulations 1968 laid before the House on February 29 be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (FIRE SERVICES) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1968
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move approval of these Regulations.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Fire Services) (Scotland.) Amendment Regulations 1968 laid before the House on February 29 be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BOOTLE (EXTENSION) ORDER 1968
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, this Order would extend the boundaries of the County Borough of Bootle, and it is agreed and accepted by the Lancashire County Council and the West Lancashire Rural District Council. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bootle (Extension) Order 1968 be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TEESSIDE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1968
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Order allows the new County Borough of Teesside to have its own separate police force instead of rolling it in with the amalgamated force of the North Riding, the East Riding and York. It is generally acceptable in that part of the world. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Teesside (Amendment) Order 1968 be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION FUND (No. 2) BILL
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, may I first of all declare an interest. I am the President of the Institute of Shops Acts Administration, and it is the members of that Institute who have the difficult task of enforcing the various Shops Acts. Before I move on to what I am going to say, may I again express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who, as I think I have already told your Lordships. used his influence to get me the help of Parliamentary draftsmen in drafting this Bill. Therefore, in the unlikely event of anything being wrong with this Bill it will not be the drafting, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Sunday trading at present is governed almost entirely by the Shops Act 1950, and this Bill maintains the same basic principle as the Sunday trading provisions of that Act; that is, speaking generally, that shops shall not open on Sunday; and as in the 1950 Act so in this Bill there are Schedules giving the exceptions. This Bill closely follows the Report of the Crathorne Committee, and I think it is important that I should remind your Lordships a little about that Committee. The Committee was set up under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Crathorne to deal with the whole question of Sunday observance and to make recommendations. One part of it dealt with Sunday trading. The result of that Committee was rather remarkable. Sunday observance generally was a controversial subject. The Committee was a high-powered Committee, composed of people of differing views on many subjects. The politicians on the Committee were of opposite Parties, and the people who were not politicians were well known for their strong views on many matters. Most people would have expected, and I certainly did, that there would be a majority Report and a minority Report, but in fact in the event there was a unanimous Report, which was really quite remarkable. This Report was debated very fully in both Houses and given a general blessing, and this Bill, as I have said, follows closely the recommendations on Sunday trading given by that Committee, though on one

1145
or two very minor matters we have not gone quite as far as their recommendations.
The object of the Bill is to clarify the 1950 Act. Probably because in the 1950 Act the Government of the day tried to stop up so many loopholes, it has been found over the years that much of it is unenforceable; it is riddled with anomalies, and it has led to a very large number of court cases which, if the law had been clear, would not have had to be brought. I hope that this Bill will in fact do away with most of the anomalies and clarify the law.
May I interpose here one further thing that the Committee found? The Committee found that there was no public demand over-all for additional opening of shops on Sundays, with two exceptions. One was food shops and the other was launderettes, and I shall have a word to say about launderettes when we come on to the Schedules. The principal change in this Bill over the 1950 Act deals with food, and it is on the food sections of the 1950 Act that the law has become nonsensical—I use the word "nonsensical" advisedly. Because they put it so much better than I can, perhaps I may read certain paragraphs or parts of paragraphs of the Crathorne Committee Report on this subject.
I quote first from paragraph 153. To put the case as strongly as it can be put, when making alterations in the food laws I think I must read the whole of this paragraph. The Committee said this:
"The chief criticisms made to us about the existing law concerned the sale of food and drink for off-consumption, namely, the uncertainty of the scope of the excepted items described in Schedule 5"—
may I say in parenthesis that the "excepted items" in this Bill come in Schedule 1—
"as 'meals and refreshments' and"—
which was the wording of the Act—
"'newly-cooked provisions'"—
which was also the wording of the Act—
"and the apparent overlap between the exemptions. The courts have interpreted 'refreshments' so widely that an extensive range of foodstuffs including many ordinary groceries, seem to be covered by the exemption and are commonly sold on Sunday. It has been held that a raw kipper can constitute a meal or refreshment'".
I again interpose, to say that this was a court case in which a shop was "run
1146
in" for selling as "refreshment" a raw kipper. The case came into court and a number of witnesses appeared saying that they always ate their kippers raw, and so, of course, the prosecution was lost. That is the state in which that Act stands.
To continue the quotation:
"and a loaf of bread is a 'refreshment' just as much as a bun or a ham sandwich is a 'refreshment'".
All these are allowed to be sold as refreshments. To finish this paragraph:
"The law has been the subject of pungent criticism in the courts. Mr. Justice Humphreys said (in the case of L.C.C. v. Linda Davies) '… There is almost no nonsensical proposition which may not seriously be put forward as a result of looking at these innumerable exceptions'.
"Lord Hewitt said (in the case of L.C.C. v. Lees), '—not often in the course of half a century of experience of the law, have I had the opportunity of endeavouring to come to close quarters with such a piece of legislation'."
In the same case, Sir William Jowitt, as he then was,
"who appeared for the respondents in the case, said that the provisions of Schedules 5 and 6 taken together, and compared and contrasted with each other, were to his mind unintelligible."
They are talking about the present law.
I shall quote a portion of the next paragraph. I am sorry to quote so much but, in the end, I think it will make my task shorter because it is so well put in the paragraph:
"These problems are aggravated by the increase in 'mixed' businesses in different types of commodity. Before the Second World War, the butcher, the grocer, the greengrocer and the fishmonger dealt in recognisably distinct classes of goods and the existing restrictions were largely based on this situation. Many grocers now sell frozen meat and fish and fishmongers sell vegetables. These 'mixed' shops are usually entitled to open on Sunday because they stock some exempted goods but technically they should refuse to sell other goods."
So that is the position. The public come in. They find they can buy one bit of food but they cannot buy another bit of food, and they do not understand; or, if they can buy one bit of food which is fresh they cannot buy it when it is tinned; or there is something else in the shop which they cannot buy. The public cannot understand it and, owing to the wording of the Act, the courts have never understood it.

1147
There is one other matter which I mention now and which causes difficulty. It is the question of fish-and-chip shops. This is what the Committee said on this subject in paragraph 156:
"Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5 allows almost complete freedom for the sale of meals or refreshments for on-consumption; the only exception is that fried fish and chips cannot be consumed at a fried fish-and-chip shop."
That is a little odd, when fried fish and chips can be sold in a restaurant. In an attempt to get round the law (because I think I am right in saying that it is not quite certain whether this is legal) many people now attach a small café to the fish-and-chip shop itself for Sunday, so that it becomes a café or a restaurant where fish and chips may be sold. I am not sure whether that point has ever been settled. This is the nonsense of the present Act.
Now may I come on to the Bill. The Bill applies to England and Wales only. Clause 1 substitutes for Schedule 5 of the present Act, which is the one with the main exceptions, a new list of the transactions for which all shops may be opened on Sundays. There are smaller changes which I shall describe when I come to the Schedules, but the main change is that all kinds of food and drink may be sold on or off the premises. I say "and drink", but that point is also to some extent, if the drinks are alcoholic, covered by the licensing laws. But this clause allows all food and drink to be sold on Sundays on or off the premises. No longer will somebody be prosecuted for selling an uncooked kipper, whether it is going to be eaten at the counter or out in the road. Thus I hope that many of these court cases, which the inspectors have to bring, will disappear.
One important point in what may be thought to be this large new section of food shops that are to be allowed to open on Sundays is that there must be fair control, to make certain that there is no unfair trading between a shop which is not really a food shop but which sells food, and another kind of shop which does not in fact sell food. It must be certain what is a food shop. One difficulty under the present Act is that so many of these things are not certain. In this clause we are trying to make the position certain. We are saying that any
1148
food shop the owners of which want to open on Sunday must be registered with the local authority. If the shop sells nothing but food, it will automatically be placed on the register, because under Clause 1 those concerned are allowed to sell food on a Sunday. But the shop will still be registered.
The shop that sells a small amount of food but which sells mostly other things will not be registered as a food shop. The shop that sells almost entirely food but does sell some other things can apply for registration. The words of the clause are:
"in which the principal or only business … is the sale of food."
If the local authority are not satisfied that it is the principal business—not "mainly" but actually the principal business of the shop to sell food—then they will not register it. The remainder of the clause deals with the question of appeal against refusal, and so on. If, after a shop is opened, the local authority finds that it is selling an increasing number of goods that are not food, it can be struck off because it will not then be selling principally food. That is the effect of Clause 2.
I come to Clause 3. Under the present Act, without prejudice to any other exemption, local authorities may by order direct that certain shops, or shops in certain parts of the local authority's area, may open on Sundays for a limited number of Sundays. Under the present Act this applies only to holiday resorts. After 18 years the question has not yet been settled as to what is a "holiday resort". No definition has yet been found. The present Act has caused a great deal of ill-feeling between one local authority and another. So what we say here is that a local authority which thinks it is in its interests can order shops to be open in an area, the whole area or part of an area, where in fact there are a large number of visitors on certain Sundays.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, did the noble Lord say "order" or, "permit"? I rather gathered that he said that they would "order" shops to be open.
LORD DERWENT: No, my Lords, they would make an order allowing them to be open. In no case need any shop

1149
open. I am grateful to the noble Lord for picking me up on that. So except for the number of Sundays on which they may be open, which has now been left to the local authority, what is done here is much the same as under the present Act, except that any local authority may take action if they think that there is a demand in their area for additional shops to be open on Sunday. That comes under the Schedules, with which I shall deal a little later.
Clause 4 makes provision in regard to Moslems. Under the present Act there are special provisions for Jewish firms, who have their Sabbaths on a Saturday, to open on Sunday. This clause makes the same provision for Moslems, but instead of closing on Saturday, as is the case with Jewish shops, they will close on Friday. Clause 5 deals with employment in the shops. Under the present Act if shop employees work on a Sunday when the shop is open for service to the public, they have to have additional time off. This Bill extends that provision to employees who work in a shop on a Sunday even though the shop is not in fact open to the public. We consider it fair that when shop assistants have to work on a Sunday, even though the shop may be closed to the public, they should still have the additional time off.
Clause 6 extends the Shops (Airports) Act 1962. Under that Act at present at specified airports where there are a large number of passengers the President of the Board of Trade can allow shops to be open during the week, out of the usual shopping hours, if he thinks that it is in the interests of the travelling public. Those shops must be situated only in that part of the airport which passengers commonly frequent—it cannot, for instance, be on the outskirts of the airport. The clause extends the power of the President of the Board of Trade, under the present rules, to allow shops to be open on Sundays, since in many of the great intercontinental airports Sunday is the busiest time of the week and is a day on which passengers have most need to make purchases.
Clause 7 deals with minor consequential Amendments and repeals. I would draw attention only to subsection (2), which deals with hairdressers. It has been very uncertain exactly what hair-
1150
dressers could do on a Sunday, and this clause makes it certain. The subsection says:
"Where there is situated in any hospital, nursing home or other establishment of the like kind, or in any hotel or club, a shop in which the business of a hairdresser or barber is carried on, nothing in Section 47 of this Act "—
that is the Shops Act 1950—
"shall prevent that shop from being open at any time for the sole purpose of enabling persons resident in that establishment, hotel or club to be served in the course of that business.'
That is not altering the law to any appreciable extent, but clarifies it. Clause 8 deals merely with the Short Title, and so on.
I should like briefly to refer to the Schedules, which contain some of the "meat" of the Bill. The Schedules deal with goods which may be sold on a Sunday. Paragraph 1 of Schedule I introduces a new provision which deals with:
"The sale of food … or drink (including alcoholic drink) for consumption on or off the premises …"
That is the main change. I will merely pick out the points which have altered, because some parts of this provision follow the present Act. Paragraph 2(2) deals with car accessories, and so on, and this contains some alterations le clarify the law. There has been some doubt as to what is an "accessory" and what is a "part"; that is to say, as to whether a windscreen wiper is an accesscry or a part of a car. Some of these sound rather small items, but this provision is aimed at making the situation clear. Under sub-paragraph (2) parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants may be sold. Although one cannot sell a motor car on a Sunday, under this Bill one will be able to sell a part or an accessory. This sub-paragraph includes one new item, "vessels". This is to cater for the increasing interest which is being shown in yachting, both motor and sail, around our coasts. There was some doubt whether a sparking plug for a motor boat could be sold on a Sunday. This provision clarifies the situation and parts and accessories for vessels will be allowed.
There is also mention of aircraft. This applies to small, privately-owned aeroplanes. Then one sees the phrase, "mechanically propelled vehicles", and

1151
that too will widen the scope of the law. There is also "cycles and agricultural machinery". There has been some doubt whether a garage could sell on a Sunday something appertaining to a combine harvester. It seems rather silly that if a garage is open, such a part is not allowed to be sold. This item was left out of the previous Act and this provision will make the matter more certain. Then we have included caravans and trailers. The car drawing a trailer is more or less already covered, and the question was whether this would cover a caravan or a trailer. We have therefore also included those items.
Sub-paragraph (3) deals with flowers. There was some doubt under the old Act about the definition of "flowers". Our wording is:
"Flowers (other than artificial flowers), plants and shrubs."
Then there is a sub-paragraph dealing with stationery, greeting cards, and so on, to which we have added the sale of postage stamps. Now that the Post Office allows stamps to be sold at certain stations, we thought that this item would be of help to people who have not a Post Office near them. Then there is a subparagraph dealing with photographs. It seems absurd that at the moment under the present law one can go to a photographer who is open for business and can have a photograph taken only if it is of passport size. That did not seem to be sensible, and we suggest that if one allows the place to be open anyway, then one should allow the sale of photographs and photographic films or plates.
Domestic fuels are dealt with in subparagraph (7). This is an important item. There is no likelihood that coal merchants in the ordinary way will deliver coal to somebody's house on a Sunday, since it would be far too expensive to do so. But in periods of prolonged cold weather coal merchants have not been able to get round to the people during the week and families have been left without any fuel at all. We have therefore allowed domestic fuels to be delivered on a Sunday. What it comes down to is that it will be done where necessary, but not otherwise.
Sub-paragraph (8) deals with food for animals. One was allowed to buy food for certain animals, but not for others.
1152
Then, of course, the poor shopkeeper was allowed to sell food for horses, and I think asses, but not for cows. There was a list of animals, which really was nonsense, because if someone wanted a dog biscuit for his dog he could say to the man, "I have a pony which lives on dog biscuits. Can I have some dog biscuits for my pony?" The man could sell them or not as he liked, and he probably had a defence. That seemed silly, so now if someone runs out of animal food people will be allowed to sell it.
I come back to Clause 2 which refers to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. Under Clause 2 a shop may open if its principal sale is food. We say that if its principal sale is food it may then sell other articles which it normally sells during the week. I revert to what I said earlier: that if the sale of other goods that are not food increases very rapidly after a few weeks, that shop will not be principally selling food and will be struck off the register.
I now come to the question of the chemists. At the present time chemists may open, but in theory they may not sell goods other than medical ones. If you want to buy a razor blade on a Sunday, that is illegal if you say, "I haven't had a shave this morning. May I have a packet of blades?" But if you go in and say, "I have some very bad corns", then you may have blades, because they are for medical services. So what we have done in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 is to allow the other articles that are normally included in the stock in trade of a chemist's shop to be sold on Sundays, provided that throughout the time the chemist's shop is open there is a registered qualified pharmacist on the premises. If he wants to go for lunch it is no good having four shop girls there, as they will have to go, too; the shop will have to be shut. I assure your Lordships that you will not get these qualified pharmacists sitting all day in one shop, as nine-tenths of them will still open for a couple of hours and will take it in turn to be there. They want their Sundays, the same as other people do, and if they are not there, then nothing may be sold.
We will skip paragraph 5 which is much the same as the present law, but there is a small point on paragraph 6. The sale by fishermen of freshly caught fish is allowed at present, but sometimes

1153
the shop is a quayside stall. So we have added the words, "at or adjacent to the point where it is landed", because very often they have a little stall a couple of hundred yards away.
I said that I would mention launderettes. Under paragraph 9, launderettes will be allowed to open on Sundays if they wish. The actual description used is the
"laundering or cleaning of articles by or on behalf of persons bringing them to the premises".
Launderettes are apparently new, but the Crathorne Committee found a very great demand for them in certain areas, particularly in the rather poor areas where many people live in flats and do not have much room to hang out laundry. Furthermore, the mother of the family is frequently working, and in such cases the launderette is really a great public benefaction. The Committee took a lot of public evidence, and everyone agreed that these launderettes were very important. Of course, cleaning agents go with the launderettes, and they are also allowed. Another point about launderettes is that they cause the absolute minimum of Sunday employment. There may be one person in the shop, and in some cases there is no one there the whole time as the equipment is completely automatic. This is a public service which is wanted.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves launderettes, may I ask him the significance of the words, "on behalf of" in paragraph 9 of the Schedule? I do not quite understand what they mean.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the words are:
"by or on behalf of persons bringing them to the premises".
It need not be the person's own laundry.
We then come on to the special orders which can be made by local authorities in what used to be called "holiday resorts", where people congregate for certain articles which may be sold. There are very slight alterations to the existing law; it is only the territory that is widened. There are:
"Articles required for the purposes of bathing, sunbathing or fishing."
There was a great request for the inclusion of sunbathing articles, such as
1154
dark glasses, which of course were not bathing dress and were not obtainable. Then there follow photographic requisites, toys, souvenirs, fancy goads and reproductions of works of art. The list is much the same as now.
My Lords, I hope that I have made clear this somewhat complicated small Bill. I trust your Lordships will not think it is unduly controversial, and that you will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord just one small question? I wonder why the Bill is so hard on the chemists, for, after all, one sometimes needs a painkiller or medicine on a Sunday morning. It seems to me that it is not very difficult to exclude from restriction such items as toilet requisites, since there was a time when one could buy only perishable food on a Sunday and not tins of food.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I take the noble Baroness's point. She says that I am being hard on the chemists.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Not on the chemists. I am sorry: I meant hard on the public.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the point is that chemists are like other people; and they like their Sundays off. They work extremely hard and they are highly qualified people, and in most local authority areas they take it in turn to open on a Sunday. That situation will not be altered. If somebody comes in now and asks for something which, strictly speaking, is not surgical or medical the chemist may, if he wishes, sell it. But if he likes to confine himself entirely to medicines on a Sunday, he can do so.
4.58 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for introducing this Bill and also for the lucid way in which he has explained it The only purpose of this Bill is a very modest one. It is simply to rationalise the existing law on Sunday trading. It is no more, no less, than this. It will

1155
not be the signal for a shoppers' free-for-all on Sundays. That might change the essential and traditional nature of the English Sunday. It was made clear to the Crathorne Committee—and I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, is here listening to the debate this afternoon; I hope he will feel that it is at last some reward for the very line and painstaking work which he and his Committee did, and for a most informed, well-written and at times hilarious Report—and to my Department in its recent long and exhaustive study of the law on retail trading hours generally, that, for the most part, the public do not want the character of Sunday changed. They want it to be a day of worship for worshippers and a day of leisure for those who seek leisure.
As your Lordships know, Sunday trading is already fairly widespread within the limits prescribed by Part IV of the present Act, the Shops Act 1950. Precisely what those limits are, and precisely what can or cannot be sold on Sundays, have for far too long bedevilled the courts, the shopkeepers, and the poor shops inspectors who have to enforce the law. This Bill seeks little more than to make what is now arguably possible, definitively so. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has already explained how anomalous the present situation, under the existing law, can be. This was underlined by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. She asked a question which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, did not understand and which indicated that even someone so well informed as my noble friend did not know what the present law is. That is an illustration of how mixed up, how stupid, the whole thing is, and how badly needed is a law which will straighten it out, even if, fundamentally, it does not alter the position.
Since the anomalies have been pointed out, I need only to gild the picture painted by Lord Derwent. He has told your Lordships that if you need a shave on a Sunday and have no razor blade, you must let your beard grow. If, on the other hand, you are sufficiently inspired to go to the chemist and say that you need a razor blade to cut your corns, the chemist can legally supply you, because it is then regarded as a surgical instrument, and under the present law surgical
1156
appliances can be sold on Sunday, but only by a dispensing chemist, who, at the same time and by the same law, is prevented from selling you his soap or his toothbrushes or his photographic films—unless, of course, he is in a holiday resort, when on 18 Sundays in a year he can sell you photographic films. The Bill proposes to remove this anomaly by letting chemists sell any of their stock-in-trade on Sunday. That gets over my noble friend's point.
One of the most disputatious and intensely complicated areas in the present law is the sale of food. The law says that meals or refreshments can be sold for consumption on or off the premises. That sounds extremely simple. But for many weary years the courts have been trying to determine just what "refreshments" are. They have been variously described as, "food and drink of an agreeable nature", or "different from a full meal—something lighter—a refresher". So said the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, in 1946. By litigation, by going to the courts and spending a lot of money, it has been decided that a whole variety of things are in fact "refreshments"—not only kippers eaten raw, as the noble Lord said, but veal and ham pies, cream buns, jam tarts and salami, but salami only provided it is sold in small bits and you eat it more or less at once. If those conditions are not preserved, then you are breaking the law. Packets of tea are not refreshment, but cups of tea are, because the tea has been treated in some way—it has had hot water poured on it—to make it refreshment.
The sale of newly-cooked provisions and of flowers is permissible, but not, of course, if the flowers are on plants. You have to be very careful: that would be a grievous sin. Then, again, fruit and vegetables can legally be sold on Sunday, but not, of course, if they are tinned or bottled. In case your Lordships are becoming concerned, let me reassure you: your Sunday frozen peas are all right provided they are in a packet. Another item of food news: the sale of cooked or partly-cooked tripe is specifically permitted—what partly-cooked tripe looks like I do not know, but its sale is permissible—and anybody who wants to buy this delicacy on Sunday can be assured that the shopkeeper would not be committing an offence in selling it. Nor would the buyer be aiding and abetting an offence—

1157
unless, of course, the tripe is raw. That would be going too far.
Many people, though not perhaps your Lordships, experience an almost irresistible urge for fish and chips on Sunday. They can, as the noble Lord pointed out, indulge that urge legally from a restaurant which sells other meals as well, but must resist the temptation if, logically enough, they want to buy fish and chips from a fish-and-chip shop. Such an heinous act is specifically prohibited. But even this bizarre embargo is ambiguous. You may ask, "Can I buy fish from the shop, walk out, go back and ask separately for chips?". The answer is that I cannot tell you—nobody can. But, my Lords, even if the sale of all the foodstuffs in a shop is legally possible now—and I have shown how dubious an assumption that is—a foodshop cannot sell other articles of its stock-in-trade at the same time. The poor shopkeeper, to save himself the embarrassment of giving silly but correct answers to shoppers' questions—that is a variant of the old one, "Ask a silly question, get a silly answer"—has to resort to covering up his forbidden tinned food or detergent or "what-have-you".
In one go, by paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has indicated that the sale of any food or any drink will be permitted for consumption on or off the premises. Food and drink, my Lords—it will be as simple and as sensible as that. Shops whose main business is selling food will be able to sell their other, previously-concealed articles as well, provided they comply with the simple formality of registering with the local authority. Incidentally, they will be able to compete on the same terms, if they wish (which they probably will not) with mobile food shops. In short, if this Bill becomes law all food shops anywhere in England and Wales, mobile or static, will be able to sell food on Sunday if they wish to do so. As there is so little time during the week for writing speeches—at least, I find so little time—I do most of my writing at weekends. If I run out of paper, I cannot buy any on Sunday. The shop is open, of course; it is open for the sale of cigarettes, tobacco, confectionery, newspapers and periodicals—the whole lot. But I can get a writing pad only on pain of prosecution. If this Bill becomes law, that disability will vanish.
1158
By way of final illustration of the anomalies, may I just mention the present difficulties with holiday resorts? As the law now stands, if the local authority think their area a holiday resort they can permit the sale of certain specified articles, primarily of use to tourists and holidaymakers, but only for a maximum of 18 Sundays in any year. Nobody quite knows what a holiday resort is these days. Certainly, to encourage foreign tourists we should like to see the whole of the country regarded as one. With the widespread ownership of cars, it probably is. And more and more, but still not as much as we should like, people take holidays at any time of the year, and are encouraged to do so to relieve the suffocating August pressure. There seems no sensible reason why the local authority for any area should not allow shops to open to sell to tourists and holidaymakers the things needed on holiday at any time of the year. This Bill will allow just that.
All I have said so far is, I hope, an argument for common sense, and on that account should cause anxiety to nobody. But for perfectly understandable reasons trade unions which safeguard the interests of shop workers, and in particular the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, are very worried. They view the prospect of such a Bill as this with considerable apprehension, because of the effect they think it will have on their members. Ever since the Crathorne Committee Report was published in December, 1964, we have been aware of their opposition to any legislation to implement the Sunday trading recommendations contained in the Report. Indeed, the Report itself made it quite clear that the unions would be opposed to any relaxation in the statutory restrictions on Sunday employment at present embodied in the Shops Act. It is their considered view, a view advanced then, brought to the notice of another place in the debate there on February 15, 1965, and discussed at a recent meeting with me at the Home Office, that a Bill of the sort before your Lordships to-day would lead to a large increase in the Sunday opening of shops—much of it, they argue, in self-defence—without a corresponding increase in total trade.
They argue from this that it would mean increased overheads and higher

1159
prices; that it would create staffing difficulties, bad enough in an industry where nine-tenths of the employees were women, mostly part-time and many married; and that these difficulties would be aggravated. Relief arrangements for managers in small businesses would, they think, be virtually impossible, and this would give rise to the danger that there would be no proper supervision of stocks and cash. Further, they consider that the results would be contrary to the Government's economic policy, expressed both in appeals to the public to spend less and to save more—appeals reinforced by the Budget proposals—and in such measures as the imposition of selective employment tax.
I respect their views. Since I met U.S.D.A.W. members from another place just over three weeks ago, I have discussed their views with ministerial colleagues, including the Minister of Labour. But I doubt—and in the main my colleagues share my doubts—that if the Bill becomes law Sunday opening will spread as widely as U.S.D.A.W. fear. There may be some increase in food shops and launderettes, and I am sure there is a great need for these services on Sundays. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, when he speaks, will give us some information on the question of launderettes on which he is an expert.
But the increase of Sunday trading is not the purpose of this Bill. It is rationalisation: the removal of stupidities, of indefensible stupidities, which I think we have suffered too long. Where there is a danger that Sunday trading may spread, U.S.D.A.W. will, no doubt, seek to protect its members' interests by negotiation. Incidentally, the Bill preserves the existing provisions for days-off, in lieu, when shopkeepers work on Sundays; and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, pointed out that it extends the existing safeguards because it provides time off in lieu when the shopkeeper is inside the store, dressing a window, when the shop is not open and when he is doing it on a Sunday. Under this Bill he will get his time off in lieu just as if the shop were open.
As your Lordships know, the Government have consistently and publicly stated their general acceptance of the recommendations of the Crathorne Com-
1160
mittee on Sunday Trading. And the Home Secretary and I have expressed the Government's willingness to support a Private Member's Bill which would give broad effect to those recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, introduced a Bill to do this just before Christmas. Although it will be left to a free vote of this House and of another place to decide, it is the Government's duty to ensure that this measure—indeed any measure—reaching the Statute Book does so in both a workable and, so far as possible, a technically perfect form. For these reasons I was able to promise the noble Lord drafting assistance with a revised Bill. He withdrew his earlier Bill and has now introduced the one before your Lordships to-day. It is one which I think is, so far as possible, technically complete—I hesitate to say "perfect"—and, so far as Sunday trading is concerned, it is virtually all Crathorne; Crathorne and nothing but Crathorne.
Finally, may I reiterate the modest and sole purpose of the Bill? It is to rationalise the existing anomalous Statute. It does no more and no less. I take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for it, and their willingness to leave the decision on it to a free vote in this House and in another place. But I must add that the Government cannot enter into any commitment as to Government time being allowed for it in another place. For myself—and I believe I speak for many of your Lordships—I vote it a fair wind; and I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.6 p.m.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, as a speaker in your Lordships' Chamber I have only one merit: that I am brief. And to-day will be no exception to my rule. Like many other noble Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for bringing forward this Bill, which I think is long overdue and a measure that is very much needed in this country.
Some time ago I took part in a debate in this House on the Crathorne Committee's Report, and on that occasion I spoke of launderettes, in which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said I have an interest; and it is one which I should now declare. I am glad to see in Schedule 1(9) the inclusion of the words "on behalf of"

1161
in relation to laundering. I should like to say why I am glad. The Seven Kings decision at Ilford was somewhat unfortunate in that it meant that only launderettes totally unattended could legally be open on Sundays. This excluded the older type of launderette, which required attendants for the machines and the giving of change, and similar services. This Bill, I am glad to see, rationalises the situation here as it has done on so many other points of the law throughout. I was going to say that I was glad to see that protection was given to the staff in respect of Sundays. I was somewhat sorry to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that a number of the unions concerned still have worries over this matter. Consequently, I will merely say that I hope that the unions will find in this connection that they are not going to be imposed upon, as I am sure they are not.
There is one brief point to which I should refer in the Schedules. Slightly facetiously, I wonder whether under "agricultural machinery" somebody could buy a sparking plug for a motor mower. Another point I feel arises under Schedule 2, which refers to the sale of toys, souvenirs and fancy goods. These types of souvenir shops carry a very large range of items. Some of them, on occasion, have artificial flowers which are specifically excluded under the provisions of Schedule 2(3). I wonder whether at a later stage it might be possible to clarify the situation in regard to souvenir shops. Rather than overburden your Lordships with other remarks to-day, I would end by saying how much I personally welcome this Bill.
5.8 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I should like to add my words of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for the urbanity, the clarity and persuasiveness with which he presented his case to-day. He would no doubt think it appropriate—as, I am sure, would your Lordships—that there should be some official representation from the organised churches of this country; although you may feel it is not so appropriate that I should attempt to fill that office. Nevertheless, it is true that there is appearing upon the ecclesiastical horizon more of a consensus on the observance of Sunday than perhaps fifty years ago would have been deemed possible. There is now a
1162
more irenical attitude in the middle—and I leave out the Lord's Day Observance Society at one end, and the most permissive lapsed Unitarians at the other—and a recognition within the general framework of organised Christianity that changes are necessary and that the old-fashioned Sunday (which turns out to be not so old-fashioned in some respects) is no longer either possible or desirable. And if I may paraphrase from the standpoint of the Methodist Church, which I imagine is rather the bell-ringer for the enlightened opinions of others, we do not regard this Bill with rapture. We do not feel that it is a view of the Promised Land. We regard a great many of its provisions as inevitable, and in general terms we believe the direction which it seeks is right.
I should like, however, to lay what I believe to be a couple of secure foundations for the approach which we ought to make and, I humbly suggest, ought to be made by Christian people generally, to this process which is now going on of the change of the Sabbath into the Sunday, and the change of the Sunday into a different kind of day from that which many of us knew when we were children. It would be quite impious, as well as totally improper, of those who profess the Christian faith, and cherish Sunday, to seek to impose its prohibitions, its disciplines and behaviour patterns upon other people; and this is all the more appropriate, or the action of recognising that this is no universal application which can be made to the whole population is more apposite, in view of the multi-racial society into which we are moving. We have no right to say, as a minority movement—which of course we are—that those things which are dear to us can be imposed in principle on those who disagree with us. But we would claim that lying behind the particular canons and dogmatic and doctrinal statements about Sunday observance there lie two principles which are not dependent on a particular theology but are in fact part of natural law. One is that it is entirely necessary for the well-being of the community that there should be rhythm in its life and that there should be a periodic change of behaviour pattern, regularly, and historically and, I think, most suitably, once a week; and, secondly, that there should be one day from time to time

1163
which is materially and which is ideologically different and, as we would think, spiritually different from other days.
Secondly, my Lords, we believe that the highest proportion of the community should have available for them the freedom to enjoy those changes which are apparent in that day. That is to say, we believe that as many as possible should be free to exercise the kind of Sunday which is appropriate to their well-being and which in many cases—in most cases indeed—should represent a change of behaviour pattern, leisure; and, what is perhaps more important than either of those, that it should include the kind of family spirit which is possible at week-ends when a family comes together and enjoys its family life—though of course this is diminishing, as we know. Nevertheless, we regard it as a most important element in the well-being of the community. It is therefore by these standards that we would seek to judge this Bill.
My Lords, I have many reservations about the Bill but I will refer first of all to those things which seem to me unexceptionable. First of all, unquestionably, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, so clearly set out—and my noble friend Lord Stonham followed up by underlining what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said—this is a Bill which needs rationalisation. It is stupid in places; it is irrelevant in other places, and it is incomprehensible here and there. Therefore, those who seek to rationalise an already existing situation by clarifying that which is unclear and removing anomalies should commend themselves to any disinterested party, and certainly this Bill in this respect must commend itself to your Lordships' House.
If I may say so, I thought that my noble friend Lord Stonham was a little naive in suggesting that the Bill does nothing more than remove anomalies. If your Lordships will examine the anomalies, you will find that in almost every case that which was prohibited is now permitted. Therefore, if you add up the various things which have been anomalously introduced in past days, and caused no end of trouble in the courts, you will find that the total increase of what is permitted now is very much larger than it was in the original 1950 Act. And this,
1164
I think, should be stressed. It has, I think, been a little overlooked.
Secondly, there can be no doubt at all, surely, that the proper exercise of trading for necessitous and other reasons, which are connected particularly with chemists' shops and with sudden emergencies and so forth, is an entirely appropriate addition to or correction of a previously imperfect law. But, my Lords, the rub comes when the fact is considered, as I think it must be, that here we are tending to make on Sunday an increase of the processes of trading which have previously been in most cases associated with Saturday. In fact, I think it is highly likely that if there is an extension of the opportunities to purchase all kinds of goods on Sunday in addition to foodstuffs, it will be found that the pattern of Sunday will tend to change and there will be at least the possibility—and I think the vast probability—that a great deal more trading will be involved. What is perhaps more significant (and this affects the trade union point of view, and has been clearly demonstrated in what they have said about it) is that there is every likelihood that little traders will, for the sake of keeping in business, be compelled to open on Sundays, whereas if their own particular desires were consulted they would very much prefer to spend their Sunday within their own family life, and so forth.
Furthermore—and this surely is incontestable—if the total working population, those employed in all industries, amount to 20,750,000 as the Crathorne Report says, it is also true that those employed in catering and the various allied trades represent 12·2 per cent. or one in every eight. It is quite clear that not every person employed in retail trade will necessarily have to work on Sunday, but it is highly likely that a very much larger number than hitherto will so have to do. It is no good telling them that they will be all right because they can have a holiday some time else, some other time during the week. You cannot, for instance, tell that to a parson. There is nothing so obvious as the fact that if a holiday is taken, or time off is taken, at any other period but when other people are similarly enjoying their leisure, or the vast proportion of them are, and indeed the children are not at school, you must not tell persons that that is an equivalent type of holiday. It is nothing of the sort. As I

1165
see it, there is no substitute for the kind of leisure time provided now on Sundays for the large majority of people in this country.
My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with those who have written to me—and I dare say people have written to your Lordships—fearing that this increase in Sunday trading will impair their own possibilities for leisure. I hope that these things may be ironed out in the further processes of the Bill, and I hope that the principle which my noble friend has laid down, and with which I heartily agree, that a Bill which did nothing but rationalise the present situation is acceptable to your Lordships' House. I would take that as an acceptable text. But when I read, for instance, in Schedule 2,
"Articles required for the purposes of bathing, sunbathing or fishing"
and I reflect on what my family require, apparently, for the purposes of bathing, sunbathing or fishing when they go on holiday, I begin to regard this as almost a cornucopian addition to the requirements normally to be seen in the shops at Southend, Blackpool or elsewhere.
I do not believe that it is necessary, for instance, to purchase cigarettes on a Sunday. If there is permission to buy other goods in shops which are registered, and which are predominantly concerned with selling food, surely, human nature being what it is, and original sin showing no sign of diminution, it is beyond any question that there will be a wholesale attempt to increase the amount of goods which may be sold, as well as food, because they are normally in the shop which predominantly is concerned with the selling of food. Will not this also create a condition of unfair competition with other local businessmen and retailers in that particular area?
I make no apology for saying that I very much regret the passing of the Christian Sunday which I knew as a boy. At least I want to put in a "plug" for it, or raise a banner for it. I feel that on the whole, though perhaps the process which this Bill represents is inevitable, it is a process which I regret. I have no right to stand as a minority movement spokesman and claim that the community in which I live must accept the principles which I hold dear, but I think that they should be voiced, and I do not intend to stand "silent upon a peak in Darien", as if to survey some
1166
new area of the world which I ought to see in greater detail and to enjoy in greater measure. Far from it. It may well be that this is an inevitable process and is part of the decline of religious conviction. In that measure, it is to my way of thinking to be regretted; but if to rationalise the present situation and nothing more than that is the intention of the Bill, though I disapprove of some of its characteristics and fear others I will not vote against it on Second Reading. I hope that it may be amended on Committee.
5.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I find myself, I am glad to say, in general agreement with the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, in what he has said on the subject of this Bill. I am glad that I do not have to disagree with the noble and reverend Lord on what is so emphatically his own subject. I share with him some apprehensions with regard to the tendencies which this Bill represents, and there is one point which I would particularly stress—that is, that in our civilisation Sunday is the one day when all the family can expect to be together and live a family life. That is a matter which concerns not only the churches but also the State. The State is founded upon the family, and anything which hurts the family will in the long run be to the detriment of the State. I feel that it would be a great tragedy if the apprehensions of U.S.D.A.W. and of the noble and reverend Lord proved to be well founded. For that reason I shall join with the noble and reverend Lord in giving careful examination to the provisions of this Bill at a later stage.
There are a few points on which I should greatly like to be satisfied and on which I am not yet perfectly satisfied. The first concerns the mobile shops, of which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke. I did not quite follow his remarks. According to paragraph 144 of the Crathorne Committee's Report, legislation would be required to bring the mobile shops—the vans that come round to our houses—within the provision of this Bill. I do not find that legislation here, but no doubt that is a matter on which I can be authoritatively reassured.
I would stress that this is an important matter to us country dwellers. The milkman comes every day and sells me eggs

1167
and vegetables and fruit. The baker sells me cakes, buns and meat pies. The butcher offers me a large assortment of joints, and an admirable man comes straight from the fishing harbour and sells me fish. Then, of course, there is the ice-cream man. He used to come and call on me when I had young children, and he still goes to the village, but I am afraid there was a row about that. He used to come up the village street just at the moment when the children were due to go into Sunday school, and the naughty little children would insist on having their ice-cream before they went in. A village row is a very serious matter. I do not want unnecessarily to bring anybody under restrictions, but there is a case for some restrictions on the Sunday trading of these mobile shops.
I also want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, a few questions about Clause 2. I am not enamoured of his register to be kept by the local authorities. It seems to me that that may be open to quite serious abuse. Let us suppose that in a locality there are two shops which want to take advantage of being registered, two small grocers who both sell washing powders, and both make appplication for the privilege. The local authority will have to decide between the two shops. It may be that there is not room for two shops; the trade will not bear two shops being open on Sunday.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if the trade will not bear it, they will not open.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Only one will be open and each one wants to be the one. It will be a difficult responsibility for the local authority to decide between the two applicants for registration, and there is a certain possibility, I am afraid, of pressure being brought by one shopkeeper to be registered as against the other. He may say to his councillor, "I voted for you and we belong to the same Party. Can't you use your influence to get me registered instead of the other man?" This possibility concerns me, and I hope that it will be considered and answered.
Would it not be a good solution if the local authority had power to suggest to these two shopkeepers to open on alternate Sundays, just as chemists do? Chemists have a scheme by which one
1168
is on duty on one Sunday and one on the other. I do not see any power in the Bill for a local authority to make arrangements for opening on alternate Sundays, and I suggest to the noble Lord that some such power should be there.
As regards chemists, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is introducing a difficult question. I believe he is thinking of the small chemist's shop, with one man, who is a registered pharmacist, on duty. The public feel that if a man is on duty he may just as well sell them a packet of tooth powder as a packet of cough lozenges. That seems acceptable. But what about Boot's Cash Chemists? I am thinking of the big branch in my own market town. It is an enormous shop on two floors. There is one long counter devoted to medicines and I should not be surprised if there were two or three pharmacists in the employ of that branch. For the rest, the shop is taken up with a wide variety of merchandise. There is, for example, a gardening department, where one can buy seeds, weed-killers, watering cans and all the things a gardener requires.
I envisage this situation. John Citizen is cultivating his garden on Sunday and finds he has forgotten to buy sweet pea seeds. He says: "I shall be too late to plant them next Sunday. I must have the sweet pea seeds. It is Sunday. How can I get my seeds if the shop is shut? I will go to Boot's. They will be open for the sale of medicines, and now they will be open for the sale of seeds. I will buy the seeds there." It is very convenient for John Citizen, but is it not rather anomalous that seeds can be bought on Sunday only at such a place as is open for the sale of medicine?
As for the safeguard mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that a registered pharmacist must be present, there may be two or three registered pharmacists there. I do not think it is at all likely that a large shop like Boot's would think it worth while to pay for all the overtime required to be open on Sundays; but it is a possibility, and when we legislate on so important a matter as this, so profoundly affecting one of our most cherished institutions, we have to be careful to consider not only what is probable, but what is possible.
Finally, I should like to say a word on the general Sabbatarian issue. I wish

1169
that the Lord's Day Observance Society, which in many ways I greatly admire, would take a rather more positive view of the Sabbath day than the somewhat negative and restricted view that they do take. I believe that if that Society felt itself able to use its energy, and its not inconsiderable funds, in order to propagate among the people a more joyful view of the Lord's Day, it would be doing a much greater service than in fighting a rearguard action against the tendency of the times.
That brings me back to the milkman. The milkman has to turn up every day. He is never able either to lie in bed or to go to early church. He has to work very hard indeed if he is running his own business, as is commonly the case in the country. If more people had refrigerators in their houses, the milkman would be able to take at any rate one or two mornings a week off from his work. Is it not time, with all the wealth this country still possesses, and all the scientific knowledge that we have, that we came to consider a refrigerator as a necessary part of the equipment of every home? I suggest that it would be of enormous benefit to the milkman and to the housewife, and a very reasonable goal which the country might set itself. I should like to see a delegation of the leaders of the Christian churches, and of the Lord's Day Observance Society, too, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging him to consider in his next Budget taking the purchase tax off the small model refrigerator. If that suggestion were adopted, we should at least be doing one thing to reduce the amount of Sunday work which is at present going on.
5.35 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. Before I do so, may I say how much I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said about refrigerators. They are not a luxury, but a necessity. The health of the country could, and largely does, depend on them. I have myself spoken of this matter, and I fully agree with what the noble Earl has said. I, too, hope that the Government will consider reducing purchase tax on these appliances. I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for introducing this Bill, and also
1170
to my noble friend Lord Stonham and to the Home Office for their help in drafting it. It seems to me to be an excellent example of co-operation on a non-Party and non-political matter, and I wish the Bill every luck.
As noble Lords before me have said, there are considerable anomalies in the present law. Noble Lords have mentioned the question of the razor, to which the Crathorne Report referred in paragraph 166. I think the short answer to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, is that a razor is a surgical appliance. I do not know what goes on in the Boot's shop that he referred to, but in most chemists' shops you cannot buy a razor unless you ask for it as a surgical appliance for cutting corns, and you cannot use it for the purpose for which it is normally intended. Even more interesting is the question of toilet requisites, which cannot be sold on Sunday, although medicine can. You cannot, for example, buy soap or a hair shampoo. I was brought up to believe that cleanliness was next to Godliness, and I should not have thought that there was anything very wicked in buying soap on a Sunday. But the present law does not allow you to do this.
The second reason why I support this Bill is because I think it will be greatly to the convenience of the public. Nowadays, when a great many married women work—and they are encouraged to go out to work—it is extremely inconvenient to the public that shops are not open for buying food on Sundays; and also launderettes, which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned, when they can get their laundry done. It is difficult when people work—and very often most of the family are working—to get everything done on a Saturday morning. If one takes the case, say, of a young couple trying to buy house furnishings, which should not be bought in a hurry and cannot be bought in a hurry if the buying is to be wise, as the Crathorne Report pointed out, the couple have to do this and do their food shopping, get the car cleaned and have exercise and fresh air all in the one day. It would be a great convenience, for example, if they could use Saturday morning to go round the big stores and look for their house furnishings, and do some of their shopping, and then on Sunday could buy the necessary foods that they probably now have to deal with on Saturday.

1171
I agree with all that my noble friend Lord Soper and the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said about the importance of preserving the traditional character of Sunday. I think it is essential, as my noble friend has said, to have one day a week which is given up to spiritual repose and also which people can spend quietly with their families. I should not like to see any inroads into that. I think it is important, also, that we should retain one day of rest, not only for religious reasons, important as they are, but also for purely practical reasons. For example, if all shops were open seven days a week, and yet the staffs were getting a two-day holiday, it might spread to offices, and then we should get everything open for seven days a week and people having different holidays for two of the days. The tendency then would be, for example, in teamwork or creative activities, that the poor chap whose rest day was going to be on the morrow would be encouraged by his workmates to lend a hand if they were working on some particularly urgent project. That is the kind of thing that we must guard against.
But, as my noble friend Lord Stonham said, this Bill does not really drive any inroads into Sunday, but merely rationalises the existing situation. It will be up to the local authorities—I am sure they will use these powers wisely—to give these licences. It will merely mean that the existing shops, which are open mostly anyway, will be able to sell the rest of their stock, to the great convenience of the public. Also I think it would stop the law from being any longer held in contempt, which is something which must be guarded against, because the public can never understand this extraordinary, and I think ridiculous, situation in which one type of goods can be sold in a shop and not another. For these reasons, my Lords, I warmly support the Bill and hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I rise just for one moment to say how much I welcome this Bill, which is really the other half of the operation which began some time ago with the Sunday Entertainments Bill. If I remember rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, did not go quite all the way with me on the Sunday Entertainments Bill. I am happy
1172
to tell him that I go all the way with him on this one which, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said, is in fact a tidying-up and rationalising operation. There may be one or two things which we may have to comment on in Committee in more detail, but in general I think the Bill is an excellent one and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for bringing it in and supplementing the other work that was done.
5.42 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate? Considering that there was one part of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, which I opposed very strongly—I think I even divided against him—it is extremely generous of him to say the nice things he has said. I did agree with the rest of his Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told me that he had been sent for by the Home Office and had to go back and work there. I quite understand that, and I am grateful to him for the general support he has given the Bill. I was particularly grateful to him also for putting the union point of view. I understand their fears. They are afraid that this may snowball into a lot of Sunday trading and it would be difficult to help the shop workers. For different reasons, of course, fears were also expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. They are all afraid of this Sunday trading snowball. I just do not believe it—I am sorry. I may be proved right in the long run; I may be proved wrong—I do not know—but, by and large, people do not want to work on Sundays.
Shops are not going to open, either a whole shop or part of a shop, unless it is going to pay. They will have to pay bigger wages on Sunday. It is not the public custom to do their shopping on Sunday, except for the odd bit of food. They do not buy their Sunday joint on a Sunday; that is part of the weekly shopping. They want the extra bits and the refreshments and so on, and I do not believe that there will be many, if any, more shops open on Sunday as a result of this Bill than there are at present. My views may be right or wrong, but that is the advice I have obtained, and that is the advice given some years ago to

1173
the Crathorne Committee. Although there may be some increase, I very much doubt whether there will be much increase.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, may I intervene to ask the noble Lord this question? Has he any information at all as to what happens in other countries where there is no restriction on Sunday opening?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, my experience is largely in France and to some extent in Italy where there are no restrictions on Sunday opening. I know perfectly well that the charcuteries, the shops which sell sausages and so on, will open on a Sunday morning. The ordinary shop does not. The butcher's shop does not; the fishmonger does not, except sometimes in Paris when the fishmonger is open for the sale of milk, because his shop is the dairy. But otherwise, no; it does not happen like that. On the other hand, if one is in a holiday resort, or in a city like Paris, there are a number of these shops which sell virtually only food and drink. They are not bistros; they are actual shops. The owner goes in and opens for an hour or two. If there is any increase in opening of food shops here I think almost certainly it will be done by the shop on the corner, as it is in France, and it will be the owner who does the selling. In fact, there are shops like that now all over London. If I happen to be in London I frequently on Sunday morning run up to a shop in Marylebone which sells practically anything you want—whether they are all things one is allowed to sell, I am not sure. So I do not think these fears are fully justified.
As regards the observations of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, I am grateful for his support about launderettes. As to his sparking plug, I should not think he would have the slightest difficulty. I appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said about his fears, and particularly I noted that he is afraid about time off—whether the workers would ever get it. In so far as shops are concerned—I am not talking about the catering trade—the rule now is, and will remain so under this Bill, that the time off must be taken in the week before or the week after the Sunday in question. It is absolutely laid down. Of course, many of these shops are staffed on Sundays when they
1174
open by workpeople who work at the shop only on Sunday. But the ordinary work-person will not work seven days a week. You will not get the staff to do it, I am quite certain.
The noble Lord did not much like the inclusion of sunbathing in the Bill because it meant that an enormous amount of extra gear could be sold. At the moment, of course, the sale of goods connected with bathing or fishing is allowed. The only addition to that list is sunbathing, and I am advised by the people who deal in these things that they have been wondering whether in fact, under the present law, they could sell sunglasses and sun-tan oil. I gather that no question has arisen of buying, say, suitcases to go to the seaside, and such things. I think that is all right.
The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, asked me certain questions. He asked about mobile shops. In my original draft of the Bill I put in mobile shops as having to obey the same rules as everyone else. It was pointed out to me—and I think it is quite true—that it would be nonsensical, when they are not controlled during the week, to control them on Sundays. I understand that it is not improbable that the whole question of mobile shops will be dealt with in another Bill in the not too far distant future. There is an additional factor about Sunday trading. If food shops are allowed to open cm Sunday there are less likely to be mobile shops. I should like to include mobile shops, but I think it would be silly to deal with them only on Sunday; when they are not dealt with by the law on weekdays.
The second question he asked me was whether we could arrange for certain shops to open on alternate Sundays. A local authority cannot do that. If shops sell only food, or principally food and very little else, they have the right to be registered; and whether or not in fact they open is nothing to do with the local authority, which is concerned only with registration. If in a small area there is enough business for one shop, though not for two, one will open and the other will not; or they will come to some agreement between them. But it is not a matter for the local authorities. If both shops like to stay open and lose money, that is up to them; but shopkeepers are pretty shrewd and I do not think that that is a problem.

1175
With regard to chemists—I will come in a moment to the question of Boot's—there is not going to be a great rush of chemists open to sell all kinds of other goods on a Sunday. It is the most difficult thing to get chemists to work on Sunday at all. A large majority of chemists in a big city open on Sunday because of a sense of public duty. They have a roster. Some of them refuse to do it because they say they are sufficiently hard worked in the week. I do not think it is really worth a chemist's opening for a very long period on a Sunday possibly to sell sundries. As regards Boot's (I am using "Boot's" as a generic term, as referring to the multiple chemists), I am sorry but again I do not believe it. Boot's would have to have their chemists there. Are they really on a Sunday going to employ at a big wage somebody to look after their gardening department, when they may get in only two people during the whole of the day? They may even be lucky and get ten. But, broadly, there is no demand, I think, for that department to be open; and where there is no public demand these places will not open because they will lose money. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, spoke about dairies. A number of large dairies are already rationalising their deliveries, and delivering milk every two or three days. Is that what the noble Lord was referring to?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, who mentioned that.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: In fact we both raised the point, my Lords.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry, my Lords. There is a certain problem here. The ordinary person with a refrigerator does not worry unduly about deliveries of milk, but it becomes difficult with a family of seven or eight if they have not an enormous refrigerator. The dairies do not particularly want to cut their deliveries, but they are having to do it. I have already thanked the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I hope I have answered all the more important questions. Again, I
1176
would express the hope that your Lordships do not think this Bill unduly controversial. I am somewhat frightened that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, will possibly put down many Amendments, but apart from that I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.
New Towns (Scotland) Act.

PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.