I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Perhaps the House will allow me, first of all, to make a personal statement and to reassure some of my hon. Friends who may imagine that this Bill is a type of D.O.R.A. restriction—an unnecessary interference with the liberties and the habits of our people. I can assure hon. Members that I realise as fully as any hon. Member that to-day there is a tendency—a necessary tendency in many cases—to increasing interference by the State with the individual, and I have a feeling of opposition to that quite as strong as that held by my hon. Friend the junior Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert). I sympathise considerably with that view, and I realise also that the State to-day is interfering more and more with family life and more and more controlling the family liberty, and were this a Bill to restrict liberty, and above all to restrict the liberty of the family, I would not be responsible for introducing it. But I hope to show to the House that it is a Bill which is necessary to secure the family life and liberty of hundreds of thousands of our people. That is the main reason why I have introduced it.

What is the evil with which this Bill is framed to deal? It is the enormous increase in the opening of shops on Sunday, and by shops I mean all kinds and conditions of shops, drapers, boot-sellers, and all that kind of shop. Many hon. Members probably do not realise the extent of the evil. The latest figures for London which I have been able to obtain are, unfortunately, old. A report was issued by the London County Council in 1930, based on an investigation made in 1924, and some very remarkable figures were in that report. For instance, in Islington, in the minor roads, 80 per cent. of the shops were open; in Bethnal Green, Stepney and Poplar 75 per cent. of the shops were open over the whole district on Sunday; in Greenwich and Woolwich 90 per cent. of the shops were open; and in Bermondsey 75 per cent. I have been supplied with other figures of various towns and I do not propose to weary the House by giving a long list, but will just give one or two instances. In Plymouth, it is reported with authority, there are 800 shops open on Sunday, in Cardiff 1,000, in Blackburn 800, and in Middlesbrough 1,000.

In considering this evil we realise that legislation which is in existence to-day—the Act of 1677—it not only completely out-of-date but is ineffective. Therefore, if this evil is to be dealt with, new legislation is required. I have mentioned interference with family life, and I will explain to the House that there are thousands of shopkeepers who hate opening on Sunday—they dislike the whole idea—but are forced to open because their neighbours open. They are forced to open not for the sake of the Sunday trading, but because if they let their customers get into the habit on Sunday of going to other shops they may lose their week-day custom. I will read one letter, typical of many hundreds I have received, from an individual shopkeeper on that point. It reads as follows: the Boot Trade, and as regards the employés—and this is important—it is supported by the National Union of Shop Assistants and by the National Union of Distributive Workers. I would add that I am astonished at the vast mail I have received, many hundreds of letters by every post, from all parts of Great Britain strongly supporting and welcoming the Bill.

I realise that legislation to deal with this evil has to be very carefully framed. There are certain principles which we must recognise. In particular, there is this point: During the last 20 years there has been a very great change in the habits of our people—a change for the better. Vast masses of our people, in fact, literally millions, go out into the countryside on fine Sunday afternoons in the Summer, and that is good for their health; it is good for the mind as well as the body that they should do so. Going into the country, some by charabanc, some by rail and then walking, some on bicycles, they have been accustomed to certain facilities in the way of obtaining refreshment, fresh fruit, flowers and vegetables to bring home, and it would be regretted, particularly by the working classes, if there was any interference by legislation that would stop those facilities or check the tendency of our people to go into the country and to take advantage of the amenities of the countryside. Therefore, in the Bill we have to steer between Scylla and Charybdis. On the one hand we have to make the Bill effective to stop this growing evil of the opening of all kinds of shops in our cities and towns on Sundays, and on the other hand we have to do it without undue restriction and interference with the individual liberty of the masses of our people. If we did interfere with that liberty we should provoke resentment and even criticism of Parliament itself.

In framing the Bill I have relied on three principles. The first principle is to frame such exemptions as will not unduly interfere with the ordinary health and habits of our people. Secondly, the restrictions must be framed in such a way as not to do any injury to the poor, because certain conveniences which the better-off people enjoy the extremely poor people lack. Thirdly, if there are any old-established customs that have been going on for generations we must be very careful before we restrict them by legislation. I would ask the indulgence of the House and I would apologise to the House if I deal more than is usual in a Second Reading debate with the details of the Bill. In a Measure like this detail counts so much. There is a second and perhaps more important reason why I should speak in detail of the Bill, and that is that it was my fortune, or perhaps by misfortune, to get a very early place in the Ballot. This Bill had been drafted, but for certain reasons it had to be completely redrafted, and again it had to be redrafted this day week. It meant a tremendous rush, and in the redrafting certain matters may have been omitted which were arranged not to be put in or which were omitted accidentally. Since the publication of the Bill there have been criticisms and suggestions from various quarters, and I should like to allude to those that are of importance. Therefore, I hope the House will excuse me if I go rather fully into the details.

I have no particular need to refer to Clause 1, but I will deal particularly with Clause 2, which is a most important Clause. On Sub-section (1), which provides exemptions, as set out in the First Schedule, I have only one comment to make. It has been pointed out to me that the words at the end of the section, a ). That paragraph deals with the power of the local authority to withdraw the exemptions under the First Schedule. I say frankly that I think paragraph ( a ) must be deleted, and I am prepared to give an assurance, by agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman), that I will move the deletion of paragraph ( a ) in Committee.

I am prepared to move the deletion of paragraph ( a ) for various reasons. One reason is that some years ago when a similar Bill was being promoted various associations gathered the impression that there would be total exemption. The Newspaper Proprietors' Association was under that impression. Unless the assurance that I have given to move the deletion of paragraph ( a ) were carried out the Bill would be opposed, and I think reasonably opposed, by those associations. A second and more important reason is that I realise that if paragraph ( a ) remains the Bill would be strongly opposed on the Floor of the House and it would be extremely doubtful whether it would go to Committee. Therefore, I give the pledge quite definitely. I would, however, remind the House that paragraph ( a ) is not quite as drastic as it would appear. It contains the words: a ) must be deleted.

Before dealing with paragraph ( b ), may I turn to the First Schedule? It may be advisable to discuss in Committee whether in connection with the sale of refreshments there might be some indication given or some phrase, put in the Bill to permit people who go out on Sunday, in charabancs, for instance, to purchase a sausage roll or a meat pie to consume on the journey. That provision would have to be very closely safeguarded. Then there is also the question of fresh fruit, vegetables and flowers. I alluded to that point in my earlier remarks. It is obviously a good thing that the masses of our people who go into the country on Sundays should be able to buy fresh fruit from the stalls of the farmers on the wayside. It is good for them and it is good for the smallholders. It is very desirable that they should be able to get fresh vegetables from the smallholder or from the cottage where they have tea. I am desirous of safeguarding these matters for the working classes who go out on Sunday afternoons. That is my main consideration. The same remarks apply to the purchase of flowers. A family party may go to a cottage and have tea and buy a bunch of flowers to take home. The purchase of flowers is very important also for this reason, that on Sunday afternoon many of our people go to the hospitals and they may want to buy a bunch of flowers to take with them. On Sunday afternoon also masses of poor people go to the cemeteries, and they want to be able to buy a bunch of flowers for that purpose.

My attention has been called to the sale of tobacco and smokers' requisites. All these items are dealt with under the First Schedule. If a working-class party is having tea or lunch in the country they must be allowed to buy a packet of cigarettes afterwards. If you stop that you cannot allow the well-to-do individual who is lunching in a London restaurant to have a cigar after lunch. You must not have any differentiation. I would suggest that flour confectionery might be added to the Schedule in Committee. It includes such things as a wafer with an ice. It would be unreasonable to allow ices to be sold without the necessary wafer, or a child to have a bottle of lemonade without a sponge cake with it.

I come now to Clause 3, Sub-section (2), paragraph ( b ). If we eliminate paragraph ( a ) of Clause 2 all articles in the First Schedule are exempted definitely and entirely without any power on the part of a local authority to deal with them in the Second Schedule. In Clause 3 we allow a local authority to exempt on Sundays up to 10 o'clock, provided that two-thirds of the shops concerned desire the exemption. We allow local authorities in seasonal holiday resorts to exempt up to one o'clock on Sundays, again provided that two-thirds of the shops concerned desire it. The Second Schedule includes bread and bacon, groceries and fish. Let me say a word about fish. We must be very careful to do nothing in the Bill which will injure the interests of our long-shore fishermen. In my constituency they do not sell anything on Sundays, but in places like Yarmouth and Brighton the long-shore fishermen sell shrimps on Sundays, and have been doing so for generations. The long-shore fishermen are a valuable asset of the nation. They are facing very adverse conditions to-day and dwindling rapidly enough. We must be most careful not to injure their interests by the Bill. As regards Clause 4, which deals with the procedure for the making and revocation of orders, this will now apply only to the Second Schedule.

Clause 5 deals with the Jewish difficulty, and let me briefly explain what is proposed. Where there is a conscientious Jewish objector to trading on the Jewish Sabbath he signs a declaration to that effect, and by this clause he is allowed to open on Sundays instead, provided that his shop is closed on Saturdays. The actual time he is allowed to open is up to one o'clock, but whether that is the right hour or not is obviously a matter for discussion in Committee. Clause 6 merely emphasises the fact that you cannot deliver during periods when you cannot sell. I must draw the attention of the House to Clause 7, paragraph ( b ). It was proposed originally to cancel this proposal, but I have ascertained that in many centres in Lancashire great numbers of poor people take their food to cook-houses on Sundays. It is more economic, and it would be a hardship on a very poor section of the people if we take away this right. Sub-section (4) of this Clause is lifted entirely from the 1931 Act. Clause 8 may be summed up in this way; that it assures that any employé who works on Sundays will get as much, probably a great deal more, holiday time on weekdays. That is the purpose of the Clause. There is a provision which says: a ) of Clause 2 is eliminated it will be fully carried out. Again I give a definite pledge that I do not countenance in any way directly or indirectly the inclusion of hotels and licensed houses in any restrictions imposed by the Bill, because this is not the proper method of dealing with licensed premises. I give that pledge most definitely.

On the other Clauses of the Bill, I do not think any point arises with which I need deal, except Clause 11. The phraseology of that Clause is rather difficult but it actually means that the measure will apply to what I may describe as movable shops as well as fixed shops. In other words, whatever applies to a fixed shop will apply also to the wheelbarrow or movable stall. Take the case of Petticoat Lane. Any Jewish conscientious objector to trading on Saturday would be able to trade in Petticoat Lane during the permitted hours on Sunday, provided he did not trade on the Saturday. In regard to Sub-section (2) of Clause 14, I have had many requests that the Bill should be extended to Scotland, but it is too late for that. If the Bill should be fortunate enough to become an Act, I submit that it would be an easy matter to extend its provisions to Scotland.

I apologise for having detained the House so long, but I felt it necessary to be quite clear about the provisions of the Bill and to suggest what we regard as necessary Amendments to be made in Committee. I feel that, provided the particular Sub-section to which I have already referred is eliminated, this Bill is a moderate Bill and one which ought to command the assent of members of all parties. I believe that, on the one hand, it will allow sufficient liberty and will not cause irritating and unnecessary restrictions on our people, while, on the other hand, it will stop a great and growing evil. Above all, I believe it will restore true liberty to many thousands of shopkeepers whom I represent and who ask Parliament to give them that liberty which they desire, and enable them to have that day of rest and recreation which was never more necessary in the world than it is to-day. It is because I believe that the Bill with the suggested Amendments is a moderate and necessary Bill and that it will, as I say, give much true liberty, that I commend it to the House with the hope that it will receive its Second Reading without a Division.

11.39 a.m.

Anyone examining, day by day, the advertisement columns of the newspapers must be struck by the frequency with which it is held out as an inducement to purchase a business that the business is not open on Sunday. But in no advertisement have I seen it mentioned that Sunday opening is practised or required. We may conclude, therefore, that Sunday opening is a deterrent rather than a benefit in the transfer of a business and that the proprietors of a retail establishment generally do not desire to trade on Sunday. But in our large cities the practice of Sunday opening is indulged in on a very wide scale and it is, I believe, increasing. For those who are reluctant to open on Sunday it is a case of "needs must" when other people do it. Although they have no desire themselves to open on Sunday they do not see why they should keep their establishments closed and allow some of their trade to be taken away from them.

For example, in the Borough of Islington, of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives of this House, a census was taken on a Sunday morning of the shops which are open, and it was found that over 1,500 shops were open for ordinary business—for trade that ordinarily takes place on a week-day. There is no suggestion that this state of affairs is exceptional. Hon. Members need only cross Westminster Bridge and proceed some little way beyond the Elephant and Castle and they will find the business of retail selling in progress on any and every Sunday throughout the year. I could easily add to the evidence which has already been given of this widespread practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) has already mentioned the report received by the London County Council some time ago in which it was pointed out that 40 per cent. to 80 per cent. of shops in the Metropolitan boroughs were open on Sunday. I think it will be agreed that, since 1928, when that report was made, Sunday trading has considerably increased, and I could give any amount of evidence to show that the practice has become more and more widespread, not only in London but in the big industrial areas in the Provinces. My hon. Friend has mentioned Cardiff, Southampton, Portsmouth, Barnsley and other centres, and it is not necessary for me to produce any more illustrations.

Hon. Members must have present in their minds the fact that there has been a decided increase in Sunday trading during the last five years, and I hope that most of them will deprecate the practice. As Sunday trading is uncontrolled and unregulated, tradesmen in shopping centres who have no desire and never had any desire to open on Sunday find themselves compelled to do so Otherwise, they would lose their weekday customers because those customers, finding other shops open on Sunday, are induced to transfer their custom to the shops which give them Sunday facilities. In this way Sunday trading has extended from the unusual to the usual.

So far, happily, the great combine and chain stores have not entered on Sunday trading, but they are business enterprises and it is not impossible that they may find themselves compelled by economic considerations and pressure of local circumstances to open on Sunday, because Parliament takes no action to control and regulate Sunday business in retail shops. If that development should take place, we shall find our shopping centres on a Sunday no different in any way from the bustle, noise and glamour of the week-day trade. Notwithstanding the fact that Sunday observance is not what it was, even in the days immediately preceding the War, I do not believe that any body of opinion holds that Sunday in the business world should be indistinguishable from the other days of the week. But, unless legislative action is taken, we shall very soon find it difficult to realise in our popular shopping centres that there is such a day in the week as a day of rest.

Hon. Members opposite, with whom I have been associated on more than one occasion on questions of the regulation of shop assistants' hours, will bear with me when I say that one of the great difficulties in the way of effective legislation for dealing with the hours of shop assistants has arisen in respect of the smaller shops, and yet it is these smaller shops that have become enmeshed in Sunday trading. That is largely because of the activity of the minority who do not mind working on Sunday the same as on other days of the week. Hon. Members opposite will agree that no matter how much Parliament may legislate to control the hours of shop assistants, it never can be sure that its enactments will be respected to the full unless the shop itself is not permitted to open on Sunday.

I see in the growth of Sunday trading a very great threat to our efforts to obtain for shop assistants in the smaller establishments adequate time for rest and recreation. We all know the untiring efforts over a very long period of years to obtain the weekly half-holiday for shop assistants and to give them the assurance of a 5½-day week, and I feel sure that it would be a matter of deep concern to all hon. Members if they thought that by failing to regulate Sunday trading that 5½-day week was transformed into a working week of 6½ days, Some of the largest organisations of employés which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend, the National Union of Distributive Workers and the National Union of Shop Assistants, heartily support the proposals in this Bill, and, further than that, there are hon. Members opposite who are intimately associated with these two organisations who have not only promised to support these proposals but have even backed the Bill.

This Measure does not prohibit Sunday trading in its entirety because we recognise that public opinion has very considerably advanced since 1677, when the Sunday Observance Act was passed and that that Act is now a Statute which most people consider entirely out of date, although I am informed that in a great city like Hull it is operative, and figures I have received show that there is an average of 20,000 prosecutions a year. The penalty is a fine of 5s., and nobody will suggest that that is effective in any way. It simply means the payment of 5s., with a little expense added to that, in order to keep open on Sundays, and it seems to me that the Statute of 1677, applied to modern conditions, is nothing short of ridiculous.

The purpose of this Bill is to control and regulate Sunday trading and to prevent its becoming so great an anti-social condition that it menaces the quite general understanding that six days a week out of seven are quite sufficient, and indeed more than sufficient, for labour. The Bill therefore establishes the principle that every shop shall be closed for the serving of customers either all day or for part of the day on Sunday. At the same time we recognise the complexities of social life, and we provide saving Clauses in respect to certain classes of shops. In endeavouring to bring about an alteration of Sunday trading, we do not desire to discommode any of the public who find that it is a necessity, or at any rate a reasonable convenience, to do their shopping on Sunday. Consequently, in the First Schedule to the Bill, we enumerate a number of trades and businesses which are exempted from the provisions which prohibit Sunday trading. Further, by the Second Schedule, we provide the machinery by which other businesses and trades may open on Sunday morning, subject, of course, to exemptions made according to the conditions of the local authorities concerned.

The lists in the Schedules have been compiled very carefully, and I believe they cover the needs and convenience of the public. I do not know whether it will be suggested—it possibly will— that the scope is too wide and might have the effect of undermining the principle of the Bill. On the other hand, it may be said that it is too narrow and makes the people suffer where perhaps they should not. Personally, I believe that these provisions have been drafted so as to provide a happy medium. In the case of the census in Islington of shops which were open on Sunday it is recorded that quite a number of the owners of those shops who were prepared to trade had establishments which dealt with boots and shoes, books, corn, coal, drapery, hats, haberdashery, cycles, gramophones, and even radio sets. I should like to read a short list of those businesses which I think hon. Members will agree might very well be left out, and indeed are left out by the Schedule to this Bill. For instance, when this census was taken—my hon. Friend referred to 1924, but the census to which I am referring was taken in February, 1932—there were found eight booksellers, 20 boot and shoe shops, eight coal merchants, four corn chandlers, 18 motor and other cycle shops, 81 drapers, two furniture dealers, seven milliners and costumiers, 44 radio and gramophone shops, 30 tailors, 12 stationers, as well as undertakers and others.

I quite understand that an undertaker must keep open every day of the week. While I appreciate the desire to purchase these articles, I feel bound to argue that there is no necessity for these purchases to be made on Sunday. The number of shops open on Sunday on that date in Islington, one borough of London only, was 1,556. It seems to me that the fact that these shops were open on Sunday for the purpose of selling the articles I have mentioned is very clear evidence that Sunday trading is passing from a limited trade in necessities to a widespread sale of all classes of goods which are usually sold during the week. It is in the non-essentials of Sunday purchases that this Bill seeks to prohibit trading.

There have been several objections to legislative action being taken. The first objection that I heard was that it would be an inconvenience to the public, but I think that I have dealt, in part at any rate, with that objection by emphasising the number of trades and businesses which are exempted under Schedule I of the Bill, and by enumerating all those businesses which at present keep open on Sunday which have no claim at all that their keeping open is supplying a public necessity. I think this Bill meets in advance a further possible objection. We recognise the fact that in the holiday season seaside and other holiday resorts are in a special position, and, just as it was considered desirable in a recent Measure dealing with and regulating the hours of shop assistants, so this Bill makes particular provision that people who are on holiday shall not be inconvenienced.

There is a further objection, or there was—it is not so strong now—against the Sunday trading of shops on the ground that there are places which close so late on Saturday when they pay their wages that the housewife is quite unable to do her shopping until Sunday morning. I am subject to comment from hon. Members opposite who are more intimately acquainted with labour organisation than I am, but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, wages are paid in the main on Fridays, and if they are paid on Saturdays they are paid about mid-day. Therefore, there is no argument in that objection. Even if there were anything in it, this Bill provides for the sale of necessities, and anybody who is in the position of not getting his money until late on Saturday night can, under the First and Second Schedules, buy his necessities on Sunday morning. The truth is that Sunday trading does not increase the volume of trade. It only spreads it out over a longer portion of the week. I feel so strongly on this question because Sunday trading enables those who choose to ignore the reasonable observance of a six-day week to get an advantage, in many cases a mean advantage, over their fellow tradesmen who do respect the old conception that six days a week out of seven is more than enough for labour.

We present this Bill as a serious attempt to deal with an urgent social problem. I regret that the drafting had to be done a little hurriedly, but the small mistakes can be rectified in Committee. I think that we have fairly met the needs and the convenience of the public. If we have not met all the needs, the Bill can be carefully examined in Committee and any reasonable amendment can be discussed. We plead for approval today of the principle which the Measure establishes, namely that Sunday trading of the extent, volume and nature of that which has taken place since time immemorable on week-days, is undesirable and harmful, and that Parliament should legislate for its control and regulation.

11.58 a.m.

Although this Bill falls far short of what I desire, I support it in the hope that it will reach the Committee stage. We hear a great deal about interference with the liberty of the subject, but this Bill simply seeks to interfere with the licence of the individual to enslave his fellows. Sunday trading is growing to an alarming extent. London has been mentioned, but in almost every city and town we find Sunday trading growing, even in God-fearing Wales. Cardiff has already been mentioned. In Swansea over 500 shops are opened, and in Newport there is the same number. I had the pleasure of addressing a demonstration on the question in Newport, arranged by the Trades and Labour Council and supported by all the religious denominations. There was an audience of over 3,000, and on the platform were ministers from every religious denomination, including the Rabbi representing the Jews. In Battersea and Lambeth we find over 8,000 shops open on Sunday. Apart from the question of shops being kept open on Sunday, there is a growing practice in the West End of London for assistants to be asked to go in on Sunday to prepare for sales, to take stock, and to dress windows. It is true that they are told it will be voluntary on their part, but what assistant with so many thousand distributive workers unemployed, would dare to refuse to go in on a Sunday?

Some people say that aliens are to blame for introducing the Continental method of Sunday trading, but aliens are not entirely to blame. This country formerly granted a right of asylum to prince and peasant alike, and we can be proud of it, but when these people enter the country they ought to respect its traditions and customs. Another section that is being blamed is the ex-service men, and we have every sympathy with them. But what happened? These men, coming from the War, found their jobs taken, and they were cajoled by tricksters to enter into businesses for which they were entirely unfitted. Whether they kept open every day of the week or not, they could not have made their businesses pay. It is a mistake to think that anybody can be a successful shopkeeper. When men get compensation in a lump sum, many of them think that all they have to do is to open a little shop and everything will be all right in future. To be a successful shopkeeper one has to understand seasonal demands and the wants of customers. That requires some tact. One has to be all things to all men and twice that to women.

When the Sunday Observance Act was passed, anyone found guilty of opening on Sunday had his goods confiscated and sold, and the proceeds were given to the poor. I think that would be a very good idea. Across the Border, at an earlier period, a magistrate of the burgh accompanied by two honest men—apparently there were some honest men in those days—perambulated the streets, and if they found any Sunday trading or any cheating or swindling going on, goods were confiscated and immediately given to the poor. I think that that also would be a good idea. We know that local authorities ignore that Act. It is true that in Hull and, I believe, in Grimsby and in one or two other places, the traders go to Court on Monday morning and pay the 5s. fine. Five shillings today is a mere bagatelle, but in the time of Charles I or Charles II it was a goodly sum, and in present day values equal to about £5. I am glad, therefore, to see that there is a £5 fine in this Bill.

This is not the first Measure that has been introduced on this subject. When the first was introduced we had to block it because it did not safeguard the interests of the assistants. When the second Bill was introduced on 8th May, 1931, the promoters agreed to safeguard the interests of assistants by including a provision for an unbroken day of rest. I regret that this Bill has gone back on that proposal. It does not concede an unbroken day of rest, but gives the assistant only a half-day if he goes in on a Sunday, except in cases where he has to work more than four hours. But for a shop to be open to the public for four hours does not mean only four hours' work for the assistant. He has to remain behind to clear up, and probably his whole Sunday is spoilt. There should be on unbroken day of rest for the shop assistant. We have to bear in mind that there is no legal limitation of the hours of assistants, except those who are under 18 years of age, and I am sorry that the Government, when they did get the opportunity, declined to give effect to the findings of the Select Committee which recommended a 48-hour week for shop assistants.

Some think the public would object to this proposed restriction on shopping facilities, but the Trades Union Congress, which I think it will be agreed does represent, to a large extent, the purchasing public, passed a resolution unanimously in 1929 favouring legislation on these lines. We submitted a draft Bill of a more restrictive character than this Measure, and the Trades Union Congress accepted it, so I think we can say that the public are with us. Then we are told that the Bill will take away the living of costermongers. Some years ago I addressed a large demonstration of costermongers in the East End of London. I believe they came to curse, but I am glad to say they remained to pray. Quite a number of them said to me afterwards that they did not in the least mind a certain restriction being placed on Sunday hours, because they would then be free in the afternoon to take their wives and children to the country. Under existing conditions they were not free, because if a man closed his stall and went away other stallholders would take his place and his customers would be offended.

Next, I should like to deal with one or two Clauses in the Bill. When I heard the Mover watering it down I was somewhat afraid and began to wonder how much would be left in the Measure. The reference to "cases of emergency" in Clause 3 leaves too much discretion to the local authority and we should like something more definite. It has been suggested that emergencies should be only such as were caused by flood or the act of God; that it should not be left to the whim of a local authority to say what constitutes an emergency.

Would the hon. Member regard a sudden attack on this country from the air as an act of God?

In such a ease people would not be going into shops; they would probably be down the tubes; but I should certainly agree that it was an emergency if people were deprived of food in a case like that. Another thing we asked for in the draft Bill approved by the Trades Union Congress was that assistants who worked on a Sunday should have a free Sunday once a month, because probably they will desire to get into the country, like the costermongers, or there may be some of a religious turn of mind who would like to attend church occasionally. The definition of "assistant" in Clause 12 certainly requires broadening, so as to include every person who may be engaged, whether a member of the employer's family or not, because a member of an employer's family needs protection as much as an assistant engaged for pay. Something should also be said about the Schedule of exemptions; but if the House will only give the Bill a Second reading and send it to Committee we might find accommodation. Though the Measure falls far short of what I should desire for the assistants I support it in the hope that it will be sent to Committee.

12.10 p.m.

I have a few words to say in support of the Bill. It is just the kind of Measure which is most suitable for consideration on a private Members' day. It deals with a matter which we are all anxious to remedy, it is of national importance, and every possible attempt has been made to meet objections and grievances and to bring the Bill into as non-controversial a form as possible. Many of us would like it to go very much further, but we realise that in the circumstances we must be content with as much as we can get, with the common consent and good will of all concerned. A measure dealing with Sunday closing in Scotland which was submitted two years ago was of rather a drastic character and it was rejected on Second reading. That lesson has been learned, and the attempt to-day is of a very moderate nature indeed. The measure of the necessities of the case has been made very clear by the mover and seconder of the Bill, and the measure of organised national support behind it has also been made clear.

Everyone is keen on making the most of the week-end. To some people, no doubt, a week-end means from Friday morning until the following Tuesday. Others have practically no week-end at all. We all appreciate what we can get in the way of a week-end, no one more so than Members of Parliament. There are some occupations in which a five-day week is operating, and there the workers get two clear days' holiday even under present conditions, and one hopes that as the years go on that will become the standard arrangement in this country and elsewhere. At least there ought to be one clear day at the weekend, and this is a modest effort to obtain it for as many people as possible. One asks why it is that so many people are at present deprived of all the things that should attend the week-end—the rest, the fresh air, the sunshine, the change of scenery, the exercise and the opportunity to turn from the consideration of purely material things. No one will dispute that to live a full, a healthy and a happy life one must have one day a week clear.

One of the reasons for the situation with which we are called upon to deal is the introduction of Continental habits; in some places Sunday is more like a Bank Holiday, and that tendency is increasing; but the real reason, of course, is just habit. People are getting more and more into the habit of buying things as they want them if they find shops open, and if it is easy to buy things on a Sunday they will do so. Shops open on Sundays because of competition. Often shopkeepers open their shops against their own wishes, because they cannot be left out of the picture. People have got into a groove and it is not easy to get them out of it, but once they have been got out of it they wonder why they ever remained in it so long. There can be no better example of that than the controversy which was aroused when it was suggested that the Sunday delivery of letters should be abolished. People thought that that would never do as a permanent arrangement, and that life would not be the same without the daily delivery. Now we are simply delighted that there is no delivery on Sundays and I cannot help thinking that many people wish there were other days in the week on which there was no delivery of letters or publication of newspapers. If a change is made by this Bill I believe it will be readily accepted by the purchasing and consuming classes, particularly if they realise, as they will, that any little inconvenience is an unselfish act on their part to the advantage and the benefit of people who would otherwise be kept inside. It has been found that no inconvenience is caused by the early closing of shops in the evening, and that in many cases the maximum permissible hours are not used.

Reference has been made to existing legislation on this subject, the Lords Day Observance Act, 1676. We might see a curious situation if its terms were strictly enforced to-day. It provides that all and every person shall apply themselves to the observance of the Lord's Day by exercising themselves in the duties and pieties of true religion, publicly or privately. I wonder how many could go through that test as a regular thing for 52 Sundays in the year? It forbids travelling by water except on extraordinary occasions, and provides for the placing of offenders in the stocks. Everybody wants to get something done in the direction of Sunday closing, and those concerned think that the result can be best obtained by placing themselves under a statutory obligation so that they are all in the same position as regards closing.

From the economic point of view, surely it is wrong that people should be prevented, merely because of their circumstances and poverty, from enjoying the benefit of a weekly day of rest which everybody who has the money and is in the position to do so takes good care to obtain. No doubt any possible difficulties will be considered in Committee, and I hope that with the sympathy and support of the Government my hon. Friends will do all they can to give to as large a number of people as possible all those benefits of the week-end which they so ardently appreciate themselves.

12.19 p.m.

I would like to intervene to state briefly the position of the newspaper industry in regard to this Bill. In doing so I would like to make it clear that I have no personal interest in the production of Sunday newspapers. Personally, I should have no regrets if Sunday newspapers ceased publication, for after all they only tell us for two-pence on Sunday what any good provincial evening newspaper tells us for a penny on Saturday, and they tell us it with the dullness of mediocrity or the over-emphasis of brightness. I realise that the production of Sunday newspapers does give a service to the public which the public desires, as is proved by the fact that in many districts there are more papers sold on Sunday than on any other day. I realise too that the production of Sunday newspapers gives a great deal of well-paid employment in the printing and allied industries. For these reasons I think that no restrictions should be placed on the production and distribution of Sunday newspapers, an opinion which is borne out unanimously by the reports of both Parliamentary inquiries which have been held into Sunday trading.

I therefore welcome the assurance which the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) has given that at a later stage of the proceedings on this Bill he intends to drop the proviso that gives local authorities power to remove the newspaper and other industries from the exemption given in the First Schedule. The hon. Member said that the Newspaper Proprietors' Association had gathered the impression that there was to be total exemption. I go further than that. The Early Closing Association and the Grocers' Federation, both of which bodies were among the promoters of this Bill, have given a definite undertaking to the newspaper industry that newspapers would be totally exempted from the Bill. The inclusion of the proviso which the hon. Gentleman proposes to withdraw was a gross breach of that undertaking. I want to thank the hon. Member for his assurance that he is going to carry out the undertaking given to the newspapers, and assure him that if he does fully implement that assurance we shall wish him well in the further passage of this Bill.

12.22 p.m.

As President of the largest organisation dealing with shop assistants, my interest is centred on the Clauses for the protection of shop assistants. Unfortunately there is no legislative protection for their hours or wages, and some shop assistants who work only six days a week may be working 50, 60 and in many cases 70 hours a week, without Sunday labour. It is vital that a provision for a complete one day of rest in lieu of any services rendered on Sunday should be secured in this Bill. I had the greatest pleasure in backing this Bill because it gives an opportunity for preventing those people who, by their actions in opening shops on Sundays, are virtually compelling other people who do not wish it to do so, by applying that measure of compulsion which in the main will be welcomed even by the shopkeepers and will be wholeheartedly welcomed by the assistants. The evil has grown already to an enormous extent, and I am hopeful that this Bill will have the support of the Home Office, and that in this Session we may see it, with such Amendments as may be shown to be necessary in Committee, on the Statute Book.

12.25 p.m.

I am the only representative of Scotland present at this moment, so far as I am aware— [HON. MEMBERS: "NO"]—and I have been asked to say how much we sympathise in Scotland with the purpose of the Bill. We have the same growing evils in Scotland as exist in England, and those of us who know both countries are aware that those growing evils must be stopped. If the Bill becomes law, I hope we may be able to extend similar beneficial legislation to Scotland.

12.26 p.m.

I appear to be a voice crying in the wilderness, because I am apparently the only opponent of the Bill here this morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am pleased to find that I have some colleagues with me. I oppose the Bill because of what I regard as unfair differentiations in its Clauses. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) went to great pains to show that certain parts of the Bill were unworkable and should be changed. If the Bill were an entirely different one I might be able to stand behind it this morning, instead of attacking it.

The only definite alteration I suggested in the Bill was the elimination of a Sub-section, and I made it clear that licensed hotels, and so on, are not included.

If the Bill receives a Second Reading I hope that the hon. Member for Lowestoft will make far more drastic alterations than those which he has so far suggested. If Sunday trading is evil, why not get rid of it altogether? Quite definitely, a thing is either good or it is evil. I cannot understand the position of the Sabbatarian who wants to compromise with what is regarded as evil. Because you object to Sunday trading, you propose to produce a set of conditions that will operate unfavourably to the poorest of the poor who, partly because of habit and partly because of the inability of some of them to store food of any sort, have to make purchases from day to day. Sunday is just as necessary to them for the purchase of supplies as any week-day.

That point of view is met in the Bill, because in the Second Schedule a certain number of shops are allowed to be open until 10 o'clock in the morning. If hon. Member's understood the habits of the working people they would know that because of their strenuous week many of them stay in bed later than 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, and the Bill will create serious disturbance in the lives and habits of such people. Because of the Sunday Observance Act, 1676, it is now illegal to open shops on Sunday. In the Bill, an attempt is made to legalise Sunday trading. Clause 3 permits the opening of shops on Sunday in certain circumstances, and Clause 4 contains procedure by which two thirds of the traders in a district may be able to assure the local authority of the necessity of opening until 10 o'clock. A stimulus would therefore be given to a greater number of shops to remain open until that hour instead of the possibility being entirely destroyed of shops being opened on Sunday at all. To meet the needs of the pleasure-loving public, you propose to allow shops to remain open until one o'clock in holiday resorts, but a tremendous number of holiday makers will regard this Measure as a relative of D.O.R.A., of very doubtful parentage.

I have a rooted objection to Clause 5, which differentiates very unfairly against the Jewish trader. You say to the Jewish trader: "If you are prepared to make a statutory declaration that you will not open your shop on Saturday, we will give you half a day on Sunday to make up for the loss of Saturday." You are introducing in the lives of those shopkeepers a five-day week. I am in favour of a five-day week, but I want it to be universally applied. It is unfair to enforce a five-day working week by legislation upon certain traders and to allow other traders a five-and-a-half day working week. You are enforcing a five-day working week upon one section of the people simply because they are of Jewish origin, and that is a very unfair differentiation. The Jewish trader can open on four full days and two half-days, according to the Clause, that is, a five-day week, but other traders can open on five full days and one half-day.

I said in my speech that one p.m. on Sunday was not necessarily fixed and unalterable, and that it would be a matter of discussion in Committee as to whether that would be fair to the Jewish trader.

The hon. Member for Lowestoft, when he interjected before, said that he had only one Clause to alter. He has now discovered another.

It is a Committee point.

Let me point out how inconsistent in practice would be the operation of Clause 5. In my constituency there is a street that is well known, Middlesex Street, better known as Petticoat Lane. I suppose that from habit and tradition almost everybody who comes to London on Sunday wants to travel down to Petticoat Lane. At the moment, Petticoat Lane is a very lucrative marketing place on Sunday. I should imagine that it is not a paying proposition on the ordinary week-days. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Saturday afternoon?"] In Petticoat Lane there are a number of Christian stallholders, but you say: "We shall give a preference to the Jewish trader." You are going to allow the Jewish trader to have a stall there on Sunday morning. You say that you are going to allow only the orthodox Jew to trade on Sunday morning. The Jew who is not prepared to make a statutory declaration that he objects to working on the Saturday because it is his Sabbath, is to lose both Saturday and Sunday in Middlesex Street, because the whole of the shops and stalls in that street are not permitted to be open on Saturday. Therefore, this Bill introduces differentiations that are unfair.

Later on in the Bill it is stated that there shall be a one o'clock closing, and here again there is a differentiation in favour of the wealthy people, the big warehouses and shops. Clause 7 of the Bill permits customers to be served after one o'clock if they are in the shop before that hour. That constitutes unfair treatment of the smaller shopkeepers. It is possible for only two or three people to be in a small shop at the hour of one o'clock, but in the large establishments, where the shop assistants are employed, it is possible for hundreds of people to be in the shop at one o'clock. I am prepared to say that in the big establishments, such as there are in Houndsditch and adjacent streets, many shop assistants will under this Bill work later than they do at the present time. In spite of the fact that many hon. Members who are interested in shop assistants are prepared to back this Bill, I am still inclined to the view that shop assistants would secure far better benefits from trade union organisation than they will get from this Bill. My suggestion to them is that they should put their trust in the trade unions and rely upon collective bargaining for the improvement of their conditions and the preservation of the things which they have.

Clause 11, which the hon. Member who introduced the Bill said was drafted in difficult terms, is really an example of ambiguous phraseology. Its effect is to bring street traders within the provisions of the Bill. As far as street traders are concerned, every step has been taken to confuse the issue as far as possible. Undoubtedly there are difficulties with regard to the crowded areas. In my own constituency there are numbers of people who, because of their poverty, are forced to live in one or two rooms, and some of them in rat-infested basements, where it is absolutely impossible to keep food from day to day. Unless the evils of poverty are completely eliminated I fail to see how one can introduce Measures of this character and expect to give satisfaction to the people of the country.

I would like now to deal for a few minutes with the Sabbatarian aspect of the Bill. From my own religious denomination I have received a request to support the Bill. From the point of view of the Sabbatarian ideal, I am taking up a fairly difficult attitude. I make no apologies for my religious beliefs. If I were able to carry out what I believe to be the precepts of the religion which I hold dear, I would close all establishments on Sunday and create a Sabbatarian Sunday. But I fail to see that this Bill will achieve anything of that sort. In my judgment, it would be unfair for this House to impose conditions which would react adversely and unfairly upon a number of the citizens of this country. In my view the legal sanction for the opening for a few hours on Sunday morning involves the whole question of the Sunday opening of shops, and from the Sabbatarian or narrow religious aspect I cannot see that the fact that the opening of the shops is limited to a few hours is anything more than a compromise with evil. I feel that that is one of the things which ought to be taken into consideration.

Five years ago, when a similar Measure was introduced into the House, I took part in the Debate. What has happened since that time? Here we have an attempt to prevent work on Sundays, but since I last spoke on a Measure of this kind in the House thousands and thousands of workmen have been forced against their will to work on Sundays. I should be only too happy if there were a general understanding that workers should not be expected to work unnecessarily on Sundays, but during the last five years hundreds, if not thousands, of workers have had to take part in the opening and running of cinemas on Sundays. Apparently because those cinemas provide pleasure to the people, the people are able to gaze upon others working with equanimity.

During the last two or three years I have been fairly active in North Wales, and I would say that, taken as a whole, the Welsh people possess Sabbatarian instincts; but because of profit-making thousands of them have been forced to work on Sundays, despite the fact that on three occasions they have gone on strike for a period in an endeavour to get rid of Sunday work. As a matter of fact, I led the negotiations for the termination of those strikes, and for a year, in spite of the rigid determination of the employers to force those people to work on Sundays, we were able to abolish Sunday work. But in the particular process which I have in mind it is more profitable to run the machines continuously than to stop them on Saturday and restart them on Monday morning.

May I ask the hon. Member what line he takes concerning the printing and preparation of the "Daily Herald" and other newspapers that appear on Monday morning and involve work on Sunday?

I want to make it clear that if I had to consider my own personal point of view I would introduce a really Sabbatarian Sunday. If this meant that certain people had to suffer from a small dislocation, I would say that, after all, our principle is worthy of some sacrifice. My objection to the Bill before the House is that, whatever may be the standpoint of its sponsors, from the religious aspect there is a willingness to compromise with evil and to consider that half-day working is not to be regarded as a transgression against the sanctity of the Sunday.

The point I was making when the hon. Member interrupted me was that the whole question is that of the interests involved. If the interests are powerful and wealthy enough the worker willy-nilly has to work on Sunday, but if the interests are weak and impoverished—as is the case of many of our street traders—they have to go to the wall because they are not able to develop an organisation and to obtain the assistance of those who would be willing to provide opportunities for them to continue gaining their livelihood. For those reasons I intend to vote against the Bill if it is taken to a Division.

12.45 p.m.

The general principle of a cessation of our commercial and industrial activities on Sundays is so much a part of our national life that probably the principle underlying this Bill will be widely approved, and on the general principle I support the Bill because it gives adequate protection to the shopkeeper, while at the same time, with one notable exception which I shall mention later, it acknowledges the rights of the consumer. I think also that if the Bill receives a Second Reading it will render unnecessary some similar Measures which have been sponsored lately by various individual trades. Indeed, on the Order Paper to-day there are one or two other private Member's Bills which are very similar to this and which would not require a Second Reading were this Bill to go through. For the rest, I should like to address myself to one or two points of detail, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said, the main interest of the Bill is to be found in its various details.

In the First Schedule, which deals with the proposed exemptions, I do not think the majority of us will find anything with which to quarrel, but it might perhaps be possible in Committee somewhat to extend the exemptions. For instance, if the sale of medicines and of medical and surgical appliances is permitted on a Sunday as an exempted trade, it seems to me that what is an almost equally important part of the chemist's business, namely, the sale of photographic materials, might also be allowed on that day. [AN. HON. MEMBER: "Radio sets."] The hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman) referred to the fact that a number of radio shops are open on Sundays, but it seems to me that that is a trade which almost comes into the category of urgency, because, if the valves of a radio set were to break on a Sunday, a number of families might be deprived on that day of what has become one of the principal sources of the nation's entertainment. I do not, however, wish to go into these points at such length that I might be accused of making a speech that would be better suited to the Committee stage.

As regards the principle of partial exemptions, I do not like the idea in shops which sell various kinds of goods. If I remember rightly, it was during the War that this kind of thing came into being, and it always struck me as an anomaly that you were able, or would be able under this Bill, to go into a shop and see on one shelf two completely different articles, one of which you could buy under the Bill and one of which you could not. So far, however, I regret to say, it has not been possible to find any way of getting over that difficulty. If the principle of partial exemption is established as specified in Clause 4, another very undesirable feature will arise, namely, that the public will be at the mercy of one-third of the shops in the district, because, although opening under partial exemption would be permitted under an order from the local authority, the local authority will not, under the Bill, have the right to make an order unless two-thirds of the shops in the district apply for or agree to it. This means that the public are in no way considered in the matter. I hope that in Committee it will be possible either to alter the principle underlying the Clause or, if not, at least to reduce the proportion of shops which must agree to the partial exemption before the local authority can make an order. I presume that the powers which the Bill would give to local authorities will lead to widespread differences in different localities, but that is something to which, under the Cinemas (Sunday Opening) Act, we are already accustomed.

I should like to say a word with regard to Clause 5, about which the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. J. H. Hall) had something to say. I should like to know whether it is the experience of other Members that, as I was told yesterday by a barber in my constituency, under the Hairdressers (Sunday Closing) Act, 1930, it is possible for Jewish traders to open both on Saturday and on Sunday, owing to some alleged loophole in that Act. I do not know whether that is a fact or not; I only heard it yesterday, and my constituent was naturally very anxious that this practice should not spread. It is obviously contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the law. It seems to me that the Section of the Hairdressers Act which relates to that matter is somewhat different from Clause 5 of this Bill, and therefore I assume that the possibility of this leakage has been recognised, and that Clause 5 will at any rate tighten it up. My constituent went further, and urged that either the Jewish Sabbath should be observed strictly from sundown on the previous Friday or that the Clause should be entirely abolished. I think, however, that that would be putting too great a strain on the principle of religious toleration, and that the Clause as it stands, if it will really prevent such abuses, will be the best way out. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Whitechapel said, it would, if anything, operate somewhat against the Jewish trader, because he will only be allowed a half-day on Sunday instead of a whole day.

With reference to Clause 11, which is entitled "Extension of provisions of this Act to retail trading elsewhere than in shops," I imagine that the Bill applies, or is intended to apply, to street traders and others. I think it should be limited in that respect. In recent times we have heard a lot about the growth of big stores and multiple shops, and I have often had complaints from private traders as to the increasing difficulty they find in doing business, especially in London, one of the boroughs of which I represent in this House, owing to the great and ever-increasing competition which they have to meet from this source. As the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington observed, the fact that traders do not mind how much they work on Sundays is largely due to the fact that they are obliged to work on Sundays because of the competition of the big stores on the other days of the week. They have certain privileges, which are, I imagine, more the result of convention than of law, in that as a rule the average one-man shop is open later than the big store—say from six to eight or nine o'clock in the evening. Those are most valuable hours for traders of this kind, and I imagine also that the small shop, relatively speaking, does a better business on Sunday than on the other days of the week. It would be interesting to know, if such a census were possible, what is the actual view of the one-man shopkeeper about this proposed legislation. After all, it is more from the organised trades that we have heard than from these individuals, who are net organised and have not such opportunities of stating their views. I do not think the Bill should apply quite the same treatment to the street merchant as it does to the shopkeeper, and I hope Clause 11 will be amended in Committee. I very much hope that these various points will be duly considered.

12.55 p.m.

I should like to voice the feelings of my constituents, many of whom have written to me on the subject in favour of this Measure. It is a very extraordinary Measure in some ways, as it is receiving the support of all those who are specially interested in the question. It is promoted by the Early Closing Association and is brought in primarily in the interest of the assistants, but it is equally strongly supported by the shopkeepers and traders generally. I have had many representations from my own constituency asking me to support it. It has the very strong support of the Church and religious organisations, which are very concerned as to the increasing desecration of Sunday and wish to preserve it as once again a day of rest and worship. Therefore we have a very all-round support for the Measure. Many of the criticisms of it are on account of the exemptions leaving the door too wide open. I quite agree with the hon. Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman) that the Bill strikes a happy medium. I remember the criticism against the Sunday closing of shops in Scotland in the last Session of the last Parliament that it did not provide sufficient elasticity and did not provide some of the exemptions that we have in this measure.

I put the great increase in Sunday trading down very largely to the great change that has taken place with regard to Sunday observance. In the old days, even if shops had been open, the average person would not have used them. Now, owing to the change in Sunday observance, competition has become greater and greater, and from sweets we have seen Sunday opening grow until nearly every trade and every shopkeeper is represented. The Bill certainly calls a halt and puts the whole matter on a sound basis. Reference has been made to the opening of hairdressers' shops. I believe that that is working very well and that there is none of the trouble to which my hon. Friend, who spoke last, referred. What has been done in that case might equally well be done in others. There are many amomalies. There will always be amomalies in a Bill of this kind. It is very difficult to balance one thing against another. We are a nation of sportsmen. We believe in clean sport and we provide rules for the various games. It seems to me that in trading, as in games, there are, or ought to be, certain rules. Until recently one of the main rules was that shops should be closed on Sundays. Now that rule has been broken, and it is opening a door that we are anxious to close again. I will appeal to all concerned—I need not appeal to the shopkeepers, because they are largely with us—to make this a thoroughly good and watertight Bill. I have no doubt whatever that the Home Office will co-operate in the matter and that, with their benevolent help, the Measure will pass the House of Commons and become a very great boon to the country at large, and especially to those who are anxious to observe Sunday as a day of rest and worship.

1.1 p.m.

I am speaking quite frankly in the interests of my own neighbourhood. The House of Commons obviously must take a national line on big problems like this. If this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will mean ruin and inconvenience to hundreds of people in the East End of London. Ever since 1800, or even earlier, there has been a long established ancient market, existing not by Statute but by custom and tradition, not merely for the convenience of the people of the immediate district, but for the whole of London. I suggest to the promoter of the Bill, whom I congratulate on his moderate statement in its favour, that on Sunday morning, instead of making his usual visit to Church, he should take a No. 8 or 60 bus and go to Club Row, where he will find thousands of people gathered to do Sunday shopping, the traders concerned being small people who eke out a modest living by catering for what is a real demand. In a great City like London, with its teeming millions, it is clearly bound to cause hardship if you attempt, as we have always tried to avoid doing, to be completely logical. If you try to bring about similarity of conditions in every part of the town you must cause inconvenience to a large part of the population. The very fact that the Seconder of the Bill was able to show that there are thousands of traders in various parts of London open on Sunday morning, particularly in the East End, proves that there must be a real demand.

I liked to see the old-fashioned Sunday, with peace and quiet, when there was no trade or business and when there was a real contrast with the other six days of the week. That is a pleasant ideal sanctioned by religion, by tradition and by universal custom in every European country, but the fact remains that we are very far from that ideal in any great town. The buses and trams are running, the Underground is carrying its load of people, cinemas are open, newspapers and sweets are sold in the shops and licensed premises are open. So we cannot pretend in this Bill that we are bringing back the old-fashioned Sunday.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is approaching a difficult problem from a wrong point of view. A simple Bill establishing the principle of one unbroken day of rest in seven, would be a more effective and a fairer way of bringing about what the hon. Gentleman desires. There could also be added a 48-hour week not only for shop assistants but also for shopkeepers by making it illegal for any shop to be kept open or for any street trader to ply his goods for more than 48 hours in any one week.

It is the desire of the hon. Member to meet every legitimate interest, but he will cause great injustice in the attempt made to meet the requirements of the Jewish people. He would profit by a visit to Club Row or Bethnal Green Market, where he would find that probably 50 per cent, of the traders were non-Jews and were there to carry on their trade because of the market. If only Jews were to be allowed to trade there on a Sunday morning it would stir up that which we want to avoid— race feeling and religious controversy. This is a wrong basis on which to attempt to arrive at the purpose the hon. Gentleman wishes to achieve, of protecting legitimate interests.

If you are to tackle the problem, you must do it on a proper and definite basis. These markets exist, first and foremost, for the convenience of the public, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Hall) stressed that point. What is the reason why so many people want to trade on Sunday morning? It is mainly because of bad housing conditions. People have no place in which to store food. If people living in two-roomed tenements buy meat and other perishable foodstuffs a few hours earlier than required in the summer time these foods deteriorate. In many of the dwellings there is no larder, and very often the kitchen is not only the common living-room, but also the sleeping-room as well. Until you improve the housing conditions of the working class areas, facilities must be available seven days a week for the buying of food.

If this stringent interpretation of Sunday is insisted upon a lot of hardworking people, and particularly street traders, will be deprived of their livelihood. In my view a Bill is necessary, but it should be a different kind of Bill, and, instead of passing this Bill, we should aim at passing through Parliament a Measure providing for one day's rest in seven, the principle of which is defined in the Act relating to cinemas, and a fixed maximum number of hours, 48 or 50 a week, to which shopkeepers should be required to conform. If this Bill is passed thousands of people in the East End of London will be thrown out of work, and it will cause great turmoil and disturbance—I believe it would be almost impossible to enforce it—and occasion a great deal of unemployment at a time when the struggle for existence is very severe in many of our great towns. I hope, therefore, that in its present form the Bill will not become an Act of Parliament.

1.10 p.m.

In addressing the House for the first time, I regret that I should be opposing a Bill which is supported by so many of my colleagues on the Labour benches. I feel, however, that they will understand that, in these circumstances, my duty to my constituents must be voiced in this House and the principles which I hold must also be given an opportunity of expression. The Bill is more notable for its exemptions than for its provisions. It is full of exemptions, and I am sorry to say that in my view the exemptions are not exemptions of principle introduced because the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion believe that they ought to be made, but because they have bowed to powerful vested interests in order that it may be possible to obtain a Second Reading of the Bill. That is one of the principal reasons why I am opposing the Bill. I say to my hon. Friends, and to the Unions concerned who are supporting the Bill, that I have been a member of a trade union ever since I was of adult age. I do not believe that the Bill represents the best interests of trade unionism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. J. Hall) pointed out very clearly that this was not the proper way in which to obtain real trade union conditions and proper working hours, and I agree with him that the Bill has been promoted in the main by the big shopkeepers and trade interests of the country. I would warn my colleagues in the trade unions not to flirt too much with such interests, and that what may be good for them is not necessarily good for the trade unions concerned. Proper trade union organisation might be more effective in this respect. I would support any Bill which would give proper working hours to shop assistants. I presume that I am one of the few shopkeepers in this House. I do not know of any others; if there are any I have not yet met them. I have never opened on Sunday or employed anybody on that day, and I do not propose to do so in the future. But this is not such a simple matter with which to deal as many Members in this House may think. I come to the question of the Jewish traders. I do not represent particularly to-day any religious point of view, but I would call attention to the exemption form which is part of the Bill. It requires the person needing exemption in the parish of So-and-so or the County of So-and-so, or whatever it may be, being a person of the Jewish religion, solemnly and sincerely to declare that for conscientious religious reasons he requires such exemption. I feel that that is entirely unfair because fundamentally, at the bottom of the Bill, there is an attempt to mix business and religion. I do not think they do mix. Here is an attempt in this Bill, not to come out on the strict Sabbatarian issue, not to come out on the strict business issue, but to try and mix both. A person may be of the Jewish race but not of the Jewish faith, and may have a business in a district where most of the other shopkeepers are of that faith. Why should he not have the right to open on the Sunday instead of the Saturday, because it suits his business best?

Something has been said about the possibilities of religious intolerance. If this Bill receives a Second Reading and eventually gets on to the Statute Book it will make for much more religious intolerance. What about the non-Jewish trader in a district where he is surrounded by Jewish competitors who are allowed to get this exemption to open on Sunday, when most of the trade is going about, and he is not allowed to open? It may be that there are districts where the bulk of the trade is to be got on the Sunday, not from Jewish buyers but non-Jewish buyers. There certainly is the possibility in this Bill of making for more intolerance, more disharmony between the people. I take the view and always have taken the view that we ought to have some regulation of hours during which shops can be open, but I do not take the view that of necessity they should close on the Sunday. That is where I differ from so many of my colleagues.

Do the promoters of the Bill wish to get some rapprochement between profit and religion and to say that we must not lose anything by carrying out the minimum of our religion, or do they want to give the shopkeepers and their assistants proper leisure? If the latter is their object, then the question of Sunday does not come in but the question arises of producing an Act which will give those shopkeepers and their assistants proper working hours and conditions. I hope that I am not emphasising this point too much, but I feel very keenly that the attempt to mix religion with business is improper, unfair and not honest.

I come now to Clause 5, which also deals with Jewish traders. Here the position is laughable. Sub-section (4) says: vice versa. The whole Bill is full of faults and it will work more for evil than good. Then there is the Clause which has been dealt with by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris), with regard to street traders. What is going to happen in those districts where for generations street markets have been held. Petticoat Lane has been mentioned. The hon. Baronet the Member for Bethnal Green, South West, will know a great deal about Club Row and Brick Lane. My right hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) will know about Stepney High Street and White Horse Street. In these districts on a Sunday it is the pleasure of the working classes to take a walk through the markets. The young man and his girl go down to look at the bargains before they get married, and they go on the day when they have leisure. That is one of the pleasures of East London.

I do not say that I am proud of the condition in which some of these markets leave the streets, and as a member of a local authority I have always done my best to improve them. Nevertheless, here you have a set of circumstances in which hundreds and thousands of people in the East End of London make the best part of their week's earnings by the trade they do in the Sunday market. What type of people are they? In the main they are people who could not be taken into the industrial world, who could not get jobs in the industrial world. They are people who are finding some means of earning a livelihood in that way instead of going on to public assistance. I have known many scores of them who are earning their living in that way.

When we talk about Sunday trading, let us remember the habits of these people. How many days work can they do in the week? They must go to the districts where there are markets, and it may be that they only work two or three days in the week. One market may be on Wednesday, another on Saturday, and another on Sunday in Petticoat Lane or some other part of East London. Some of my colleagues from other parts of the country tell us that this sort of thing is not done in Manchester, or Hull or other places. They have no street markets there. In that respect they are more fortunate than we are in London. Perhaps their local administration for years has been more effective than ours.

Hear, hear.

London has been under Tory rule for many years. In those other districts covered markets have been provided. Will anybody suggest that we ought to have a big closed market in Stepney, where the land is so much needed and so valuable for rehousing? We cannot do it. That is why our people have been pushed on to the streets and why the trading has been done in the streets. My greatest objection to the Bill, although I realise that a Bill of some sort to control the hours of shop assistants and the hours that shops may be open, is urgently required, is that it protects vested interests and powerful interests. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading was very careful to explain that the Bill would not affect off-licences. He almost begged us to remember that it would not affect off-licences. It protects powerful interests. If it hurts anybody it will hurt the smallest traders, who find it most difficult to get a living and who under present economic conditions are continually struggling for a bare subsistence. Because of these reasons I shall oppose the Bill.

1.24 p.m.

I have listened to most of the debate to-day as indeed I have listened to debates on similar subjects in this House for many years past. Nearly all the arguments that are being employed to-day have been used on at least half a dozen occasions since I have been a Member of this House. Let us remember first of all that we are dealing with the biggest industry in the land, if distribution can be called an industry. Coalmining, engineering, textiles, are all petty by comparison with the colossal industry of distribution, which employs 2,250,000 shop assistants for wages, while there must be an additional half a million more engaged in the industry on their own account. Hon. Members will therefore see how big the problem really is. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) on his maiden speech. Whether we agree with all that he has said or not one thing is certain; he can make himself heard and understood in this House, and we shall be glad to listen to him on any future occasion.

I am naturally interested in the several problems raised by the Bill. I hope hon. Members of my own party who have spoken in the debate will allow me to make one or two criticisms on their observations. One hon. Member said that everything is either good or bad. My experience in politics does not lead me to that conclusion. When I go into the Division lobby I have almost invariably to choose the lesser of two evils, and no doubt their experience will be the same if they are here for any length of time. One hon. Friend of mine has said that shop assistants ought to rely on their trade unions. That is perfectly right, but I defy him or any other man to organise shop assistants so strongly that they can look after their own interests in the same way as the miners or transport workers. No man has yet been able to make a real impression on shop assistants so as to bring them into a trade union on a large scale.

My hon. Friend will agree that however difficult a task may be no task can be regarded as impossible.

I hope the hon. Member will not ask me to wash our dirty linen in public. It has been argued that what we ought to aim at is not Sunday closing, but the regulation of the hours of labour of shop assistants. I have been at that task for 30 years, my mind is soaked in the conditions of employment in the distributive trades. I spent two years on a Select Committee dealing with that issue, and we found that you cannot effectively regulate the hours of employment in shops without trade union organisation. No law is of any avail unless there is an organisation to implement it, and at the present time there is no trade unionism in shop life, apart from the excellent organisation, the Shop Assistants' Union, and the very much better union to which I belong, strong enough to enforce the law. We have always pleaded for legal enactments to safeguard shop assistants simply because we have not yet made the necessary impression upon them for trade union purposes. One way in which to see that the hours of labour of shop assistants are safeguarded is to close the shops where they work. The Home Office, with its long experience since the days of Sir Charles Dilke, will know that this is one way in which to safeguard conditions of employment in shops.

Is it not a fact that the Bill affects only a small minority of shops accustomed to open on Sundays and not shops as a whole?

If we do not restrict Sunday trading in small shops there is no argument left why all shops, big and small, should not open. If all private shops in a town are allowed to open what argument is left against the Co-operative Society doing likewise?

Trade unions.

We shall obviously have to engage the hon. Member as an organiser of shop assistants. I want to appeal to the Government to support the Second Reading of the Bill so that some of the points which have been mentioned during the Debate can receive attention in Committee. I am getting alarmed at the increase of Sunday trading. It is growing in new estates especially. Can anyone tell me why girls should be kept in kiosks in London for 10 and 12 hours on a Sunday for a miserable paltry wage, merely to supply cigarettes to fellows who ought to buy them on Saturdays? When hon. Members talk about the community, let me ask them who is the community? The community, so-called, is the biggest tyrant of all. As a trade union official I have had to fight that community when I knew that my people were right and the community was wrong. If all shops in this great city of London were open day and night without ever closing there would still be somebody inside buying something.

I hope the House will pardon me relating an experience of my own on that point. I have given it before, but as this is a new Parliament it may be interesting to some hon. Members. I was a coal miner, and then found work in a cooperative shop. We closed at half-past eleven on Saturday night—this was in the Rhondda Valley. We closed at half-past eleven because at 12 o'clock it was Sunday, and we lived in Wales. We started an agitation and gradually reduced the hours from half-past eleven to half-past ten, and then to half-past nine, and today the hour is half-past six. Every time we reduced the hours five dear old ladies came in just three minutes before the door was closed. They came in three minutes before half-past eleven, three minutes before half-past ten, three minutes before half-past nine, and three minutes before half-past six. I went down to that district some time ago and I was in that store three minutes before the door closed at half-past six. I asked, "Where are the five old ladies?" I was told that they had all gone to Heaven, and I believe that they arrived there just three minutes before the doors were shut. This business of late shopping and shopping on Sunday is nothing but a bad habit. If a shop is to be open on Sunday why not the lawyer's office, the town hall, the trade union office?

Why not the House of Commons?

Because we have more sense than to meet on Sunday. Some body has to raise his voice in this assembly and declare that the opinion of the so-called community shall not be allowed to tyrannise over shop assist ants or shopkeepers. I do not agree with everything in the Bill and frankly I do not think that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) need have been so humble about it. If he had been a Welshman I could have under stood his timidity, but being an English man—

He is an Irishman.

That is worse still.

Better still.

I was here when we passed an Act of Parliament to open cinemas on Sundays, and I remember the arguments stating that there was a great demand on the part of the community for Sunday cinemas. I looked up a report on the matter the other day and it is amazing how few people wanted that Measure after all. There is not that great demand by the community for the Sunday opening of shops that we are led to believe exists. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. London has problems of its own, but I think I can speak on behalf of Members of all parties from the provinces when I say we are not going to let London impose its will on us. Petticoat Lane is not going to lay down the law for all shopkeepers and shop-assistants in this country. Man has been ruled for a long time by petticoats but England is not I hope to be governed by Petticoat Lane. Once opening of shops on Sundays becomes universal, can any hon. Member tell me why you should not also open factories on Sunday? What is there to differentiate the shop from the factory?

The Bill does not deal with factories.

But anybody who votes against this Bill means to do that in the end.

In my constituency the wholesalers have started delivering goods on Sunday.

The hon. Member is perfectly right, and the evidence which is to be found in the Library of this House, given before the Select Committee dealing with shop assistants, rather amazed Members of all parties who were on that committee. I am glad to say that Members of all parties in the last Parliament joined with us in saying that there should be some safeguards in law for the conditions of employment of young persons in the distributive trades. The situation in distribution in this country is very deplorable in some respects. Frankly, I am afraid of a seven-day week. I see it coming gradually, and a seven-day week means six days' pay for seven days' work. I have worked seven days a week in my time and I say that, if I can help it, nobody else shall work seven days for six days' pay. It is clear that if one shopkeeper opens in a street, the whole street is bound to open and, if one street opens, the whole town must open automatically. The hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman) said that there were 40 shops in his constituency selling gramophone records and wireless sets on Sunday. I am not speaking as a Sabbatarian. I stand for the six-day working week with one day's rest in seven but I do not want that day's rest arranged on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) who, apparently, wants to turn my Sunday into a Tuesday or a Wednesday. The argument is that all we need do is to say there shall be a six-day working week with one day's rest in seven, and that it does not matter whether the Sunday comes on a Friday or a Tuesday. As a family man let mo say that my family life would be unduly disturbed if any member had his Sunday on a Tuesday. The value of a Sunday is that everybody in the family is at home on the same day. What is the use of talking about a six-day working week in which six members of a family would each have his day of rest on a different day of the week?

They do not stop at home on Sunday.

But they want to come home sometimes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not often."] Oftener than the hon. Gentleman, I hope. I have pointed out that this business of distribution is colossal. It is not commonly known I think that 33 out of every 100 children leaving school enter the distributive trade. Although we in the Labour movement need not necessarily champion the cause of the shopkeeper, I am satisfied that the children of shopkeepers will suffer unless Sunday trading stops, and the children of the shopkeepers ought to be as much our concern as the children of anybody else. I happen to be an official of a trade union of distributive workers, mainly co-operative employés. I am pleased to say that the co-operative movement transacts very nearly all the businesses mentioned by an hon. Gentleman earlier as being transacted in his Parliamentary division, and does so for 7,000,000 customers in a 48 hour week on six days in the week; and apart from the delivery of milk, there is a Sunday for every co-operative employé on the Sunday proper. What the co-operative movement can do, surely private capitalism ought not to be ashamed to attempt. As a Socialist, as a trade unionist, as a Labour man—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. Why not? I am here because I am all that. If I were not that, then I think I would be less intelligent than I am.

The hon. Gentleman is making an attack upon what he calls "private capitalism" in contrast to the operation of the co-operative societies, but only a short time ago he placed all the responsibility for being tyrannical on the community and not upon capitalism.

When the hon. Member is against me on anything I feel certain that I am more right than ever.

Do the employés of cooperative dairies work on Sunday?

Yes, I have already said so. Apart from the delivery of milk, the Co-operative movement does all its business in a 48-hour week, six days a week, and all the employés have their Sunday on the same day. Finally, I say, therefore, that I support this Bill, not because it is perfect. I can see its blemishes, and if it is taken upstairs, as I hope it will be, I trust the hon. Gentleman will not be quite as humble about his Bill as he was to-day. This objectionable Sunday trading has got to be cleared up once and for all, otherwise, in the end, I can see the working classes, for whom we have been fighting for a long time, reduced once again to working every day in the year. For these reasons, I shall support the Bill, and I would add in conclusion, that as this is a private Member's Bill, everyone of us is entitled to speak for himself, and I have spoken to-day for myself and myself alone.

1.47 p.m.

I rise to make a very few brief observations from the point of view of the Government. I was going to say, before the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) made his last observations, that it was a very agreeable sensation for this House to discuss a subject into which party feeling intruded so little, and indeed I think, in spite of what the hon. Member said. I can still say that, because we have had, I think the House will agree, a very interesting discussion which has been based purely on the merits of the question. It has been interesting to observe, what one finds so often in this House, that there are far more representatives of all kinds of interests and professions in this country represented in this House than one has any idea of before one gets down to a particular question. We have had one representative who has spoken to-day about whom I would like to say a word or two, and that is the hon. Member for the Mile End Division of Stepney (Mr. Frankel). I think I have described him correctly, and I am aware that he is very sensitive of having his correct description. He said he was a shopkeeper, and he believed he was the only shopkeeper in this House. It may be that that is not the case, but that was his impression. He also spoke with special reference to the Jewish aspect of this question, and I would like to congratulate him upon the vigour and ability of his speech. Of course, I do not agree with his politics, but I think a great many Members will have felt, as I did, what an honour it is to belong to an Assembly like this, in which a representative of practically every Minority in this country really has the opportunity of giving free expression to his views.

Turning to the general question, I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his predecessors have on several occasions expressed the opinion that they would welcome a discussion on this subject. In the Home Office, from representations which we have received from a good many sources, we are aware of the fact that that is a subject which is agitating the minds of a great many people throughout the country, and I would say at once that the Government are in general sympathy with the principles underlying the Bill, but we recognise— and I think, after some of the speeches which we have heard to-day, the House will agree—that it deals with a very difficult subject-matter upon which there are large differences of opinion with regard to details.

I think there is one thing upon which there will not be very much disagreement. We should all like to see shopkeepers and their staffs as far as possible in a position to observe Sunday in a normal way like most other people. On the other hand, we know that there are certain reasonable needs of the public which require to be met even, on a Sunday, and I think we should also all agree that the fewest possible number of people should have to give up their Sunday in order to cater for those public needs. I think we should probably reach a large measure of general agreement on the principle that only those shops should remain open which are essential to meet the requirements of the public and only to the extent that they are essential, and I think it is probable that there is a larger measure of Sunday opening today in this country than is required by essential public needs. We have had to-day examples of how that occurs. The obvious first example is that if a single shop opens, in self-defence many other shops in the neighbourhood have to open as well. Therefore, the problem is to strike a just balance between the reasonable needs of the public and the equally reasonable desire of the great bulk of those engaged in the distributive trades to enjoy their share of Sunday rest and recreation.

If that is accepted, it follows at once that the crux of any Bill of this kind lies in the scope and the nature of the exemptions to the general principle of closing on Sunday. I am not prepared to say at present whether the exemptions in this Bill are too narrow or too wide, from the Home Office point of view, but I think it is clear that if the Bill passes its Second Reading, these provisions will require the very closest scrutiny in Committee. For example, we have had raised to-day by a number of Members a few of the difficulties which are not dealt with in the Bill as it stands. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and other hon. Members raised the question of street trading, and there was the difficulty about the question of the Jewish exemptions. There was talk also about Club Row, and the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill gave us examples of the difficulties which he himself had already realised. He gave us the example of the ice cream that might be sold without the wafer, and he mentioned the fact that he desires to exclude an ancient profession which has always provided shrimps in a particular part of the country, where they are sold and eaten on the day they are caught.

I hope the House will agree that whatever we may think about the merits of these particular proposals, it is very important indeed that legislation of this kind should not impose a vexatious curtailment of liberty or of convenience nor make provisions in an Act of Parliament which are found not to correspond with the real needs of the country. The hon. Member has shown a conciliatory spirit in already proposing to make large alterations in the Bill as it stands. It is, of course, true—and I think this House would wish to take the fact into consideration—that it is the great interests which are able to make their point of view clear more quickly than anybody else in matters of this kind, and there are a number of unorganised and inarticulate interests which will also require to be considered, and I think the House would agree that Parliament should give special and careful consideration to anything that affects such interests.

The needs of different districts undoubtedly vary a great deal. For example, residential districts have different needs from seaside resorts. We ought to recognise that the business of catering for holiday crowds at the week-end is a large business upon which the livelihood of a large number of people depends. Another difficulty which will have to be considered is how far the hon. Gentleman is prepared to go in leaving out Sub-section 2 ( a ) of Clause 2, and how far that might make the adaptation to local needs more difficult. I do not press the point, but it is a point which, like so many others, will require careful consideration in Committee. There are three points which the House might like me to mention as those to which the Home Office has already given first consideration. We feel some doubt whether it is wise to insist that all kinds of orders by local authorities should require the confirmation of the Home Secretary.

With regard to the position of persons of the Jewish faith, I am not prepared at present to take a definite line as to the desirability or adequacy of these provisions. They are similar to the provisions of the Act of 1930 dealing with hairdressing, which have not worked altogether satisfactorily. It is true that the provisions in this Bill are not quite the same as those in the Act of 1930, but it is a point that will require careful consideration. The principle of providing compensating holidays for those employed on Sunday has already been recognised in Shops Acts, and I am sure it will command general sympathy. There are, however, certain points in the particular proposal in the Bill about which we are a little doubtful and that matter, too, will require careful consideration. I think that I have said enough to express our view that, if the Bill passes Second reading, the real problems will still remain to be faced. They will have to be faced in Committee. Some of these problems are far from easy, but if it is the wish of the House that the Bill should be given a Second reading and should go to Committee, the Home Office will do its best to co-operate in making a workmanlike and good measure of it.

1.58 p.m.

May I put a point with regard to Scotland. Although the Under-Secretary has not the Scottish law officers with him to-day, may I ask him whether he can give the House, and Scottish Members particularly, any indication whether Scotland can easily and conveniently be excluded from the list of exemptions and be brought within the terms of the Bill? I ask the question because in 1926 a Bill was passed dealing with the adoption of children in England. When I came to the House in 1929 the task fell to me of putting forward a Private Members Bill under the 10 Minutes Rule to deal with the adoption of children in Scotland. The simple inclusion of Scot land in the English Bill would have made that process unnecessary. I would there fore ask whether we could have any guidance of what may be the position of Scot land in relation to this Bill.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be able to give a detailed reply, but I can say that I have been asked, if any Scottish points were raised to-day, to express regret at the fact that the Scottish Ministers are unable to be present because they are engaged on important official business in Scotland. I have also been asked to say that any points affecting Scotland which were raised in the Debate will be given careful consideration by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

2 p.m.

If my hon. Friend who moved the Second reading of this Bill desires to get it through Committtee and through the House, I would advise him to beware of Scotland and not to graft Scottish controversies on to the Bill. I would like to observe, without attaching any blame to my hon. Friend, that this Bill is a somewhat flagrant instance of late printing. I have inquired for it at the Vote Office, but it was not until comparatively late on Tuesday that I was able to obtain a copy of the Bill. As has been explained in the Debate, the Bill has been subjected to various changes. The advance indications of its proposals have been considerably modified; in fact, it is a new Bill which contains provisions which my hon. Friend in charge of it did not realise until it was distributed on Tuesday. The Debate has shown that this is a subject that spreads very far and affects a vast number of interests. Surely it would have been better for time to have been made available to enable it to be distributed to different parts of the country so that its provisions could be carefully considered. If this practice goes much further, I venture to suggest that the House should consider whether some rule of procedure in relation to the printing of Bills should be laid down so that Bills should be available to the House for a certain period before Second reading.

I doubt whether the promoters of the Bill, or even the Home Office, thoroughly realise the stormy and difficult sea on which they are embarking. I have lively recollections of the Shop Act of 1912, a Measure introduced by a strong Government and supported by a compact and determined majority. It occupied a considerable part of the Session in Committee upstairs. So many new aspects and difficulties were found to arise, that the Bill, in spite of the determination of the majority to carry it in the form in which it was introduced, had to be considerably altered. This Bill is a great task for a Private Member to undertake, and I regret to notice that the observations of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did not give very much guidance to the House. He was studiously nebulous as to the line the Home Office proposes to take when the Bill reaches Committee. The House should be chary of making unnecessary alterations in the Shops Act, 1912, which goes over a considerable part of the ground which this Bill traverses.

As regards exemptions, they will have to be considered, but as we are all talking without much reservation I venture to-say that in these matters I am not greatly impressed by the rigid Sabbatarian argument. One day's rest in seven, of course, is fundamental, but those who hold the Sabbatarian idea as one of the cardinal articles of the faith will find, I think, that theologically they will have some difficulty in establishing that view. However that may be, we all agree that we want one day's rest in seven, and in that this Bill proposes to prevent the deterioration of that principle and puts a check upon the growing practice of the unnecessary opening of shops and so forth on Sunday, we are all willing to support it.

I aim here, among other things, speaking for the licensed trade, which is supposed to be one of the exceptions under this Bill. My hon. Friend agrees that the licensed trade, with the other trades in the First Schedule of the Bill, should not be subject to special orders made by local authorities, but that one rule should prevail throughout the land. He has, no doubt, relieved himself in that way of a, good deal of trouble and I think he is right in principle, because the licensed trade has had some very considerable experience in these matters. The last Licensing Act, I think that of 1920, dealt with the subject and allowed very considerable local variations. There was a belief then that the power exercised by the local magistrates would be used discreetly and in the interests of the community, but notwithstanding the often expressed satisfaction of the Lord Chief Justice, who was then in this House, and had much to do with it, that principle of the Act has not worked altogether smoothly. In many districts magistrates appear to have acted according to their personal prejudices, with little regard to public convenience or even common sense, so that we should pause very carefully before we allow sporadic local orders.

The licensed trade are already under a very strict code of regulations governing the hours of opening and closing on Sundays and interference with those arrangements by a side wind such as this Bill—any endeavour to upset this very difficult question—would not be right and should not be agreed to. On the general principle I am prepared to support the Bill, but I do so with some trepidation in view of the very nebulous statement which has been made on behalf of the Home Office and the great difficulties which experience has shown will be facing the promoters in handling this very difficult, thorny and far-reaching subject.

2.10 p.m.

I wish to bring forward a new aspect of this matter. I had hoped that the fortunes of the Ballot might have enabled myself or my friends to submit a Bill restricting Sunday trading in bakers' shops and in bakehouses, but we were not fortunate in the Ballot. We are supporting this Bill in principle, but unfortunately, the Mover, after pointing out that the Bill as printed places bread and confectionery in the Second Schedule, suggested transferring them to the First Schedule, and all the telegrams and letters which I have received asking me to support the Bill on behalf of the baking industry seem now to be of no avail.

It is very important to get this clear. I gather that the hon. Member is under the impression that I suggested in my introductory speech moving the whole of the baking trade from the Second Schedule to the First Schedule. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. What I suggested was taking "flour confectionery" out of the Second Schedule and putting it into the First Schedule, and for this reason, that a wafer sold with an ice is, I believe, technically flour confectionery, and a sponge cake or other little cake sold to a child with a bottle of lemonade is also flour confectionery; but I did not include the general bakery business.

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. One sees by that statement some of the technical difficulties which lie ahead. This spread of Sunday trading is involving us in a rather dreadful state of affairs. Here in London the opening of bakers' shops on Sundays compels men to go to work on Saturday night and to work into the Sunday morning in order to produce new bread to be sold in bakers' shops on Sundays. Not only is the shop assistant compelled to work on a Sunday but the producer of the bread also. Members from the East End of London who have spoken have all laid special stress on East End difficulties, We had a very fine maiden speech from a Member representing an East End constituency in which he pleaded for tolerance and put up a special case on behalf of those of the Jewish faith. May I suggest to him and his colleagues that on this question there must be some give and take, and tolerance on both sides? It is a bitter complaint in the baking industry that the Jewish baker, not content with being able to open his shop on Sundays for the supply of bread to people of his own faith, takes the opportunity of calling upon Christian people who are outside his regular customers, simply for the purpose of getting more trade. People like myself who are friendly to those of the Jewish faith and want to give them a square deal, beg them to remember that the one thing which is doing them the most harm in this country to-day is this disposition to grab trade at any cost, at any time and under any circumstances.

I also wish to put forward a point about the one-man shop. It is sometimes argued that the one-man shopkeeper, the man who employs no labour—his wife and children it may be—is the man who, above everybody else, is responsible for Sunday trading and Sunday opening. Here, again, we have an example of how one man may sway and alter the lives of scores of others. From the experience I have had in my own family I have no hesitation in declaring that if this Bill should be passed nobody would welcome it more than the owner of the one-man business. His life is hard. He has to work from Monday morning to Sunday night. He gets no relief. He is tied to his shop, and complains most bitterly that not even on a Sunday is he able to have a little rest and recreation. The question of Sunday trading is a serious one. I appeal to hon. Members not to let the peculiar problems of London be the reason why we should oppose a national Bill of this kind. In that part of the country which I represent and where I was born, we have always prided ourselves on keeping the Sabbath, and I am not ashamed to say that it has been a good thing.

It is the most miserable day in the week.

What constitutes joy for one man may be hell for another. The British Sabbath as we have it to-day contains elements which are the most enjoyable in the week. It would be a calamity if we were to lose that. I have been a trade union official for many years, and I have lived long enough to see the hours of labour reduced for millions of men. They have their Saturday afternoon and the whole of Sunday free, and may we not ask them not to make work for other people on the Sabbath to satisfy what they term their wants and requirements; that inasmuch as they cherish their week-end and their Sunday that they should try to give comfort to other people too? The selfishness and indifference of people is responsible for a great deal of injustice to others. An hon. Member from the East End said that people there must go out on Sunday to buy food because there is no storage accommodation in their homes. Surely it should be the business of this House to see that people have better housing conditions. If you are to have people opening their shops on Sunday to supply food on those grounds, you are only encouraging the continuance of rotten housing conditions for longer than they otherwise would last.

Some of my hon Friends in the East End say that we must think about the street traders and remember that they have to live. I would be the last to say that street traders should not have as much consideration as those who are far more powerful, but that is no real argument for fighting against the principle of this Bill. These are Committee points, and the case for these people can be made there. There seems to be an argument that if you can secure one day's rest in seven for every one that is all right. I profoundly disagree. I am satisfied that there is no other day which is equal to Sunday as a day of rest. I do not put it on religious grounds but on the important ground of the family life of our people. Let the family get together at least once a week. I see sons and daughters going to visit their parents on Sundays; I see sisters and brothers going to have tea with each other on Sunday. Surely that is a sweet thing. In the baking industry we are coming to the position in which men are compelled to work seven days a week. People say "Why does the Union let them?" When men are faced with being thrown out on the streets or with having to work seven days a week, they are compelled to submit to what amounts to a slavery which we should not tolerate.

This thing is going to grow like a snowball, and it is unthinking people who demand so much on Sunday who compel other people to work for them and do without their day of rest. It is all very well for hon. Members to say there is too much restriction, but it is far worse to permit restrictions to be inflicted on a great many people. Some people say that if some shops are to be closed on Sundays none should be open. That sounds all right and means nothing. It is essential that we should have reasonable compromise in a matter of this kind. Sunday trading and Sunday work are only justified by absolute necessity for the welfare and comfort of the people as a whole. If it is not absolutely essential we have a right to say that our Sunday shall not be changed by it into a day like any other in the week, and that we will preserve it as a day of rest and peace to equip us for the toil of the rest of the week.

2.24 p.m.

I think the House will agree that we have had a most interesting debate on a great social question. Every speech showed the anxiety of hon. Members to preserve our Sunday from that process of commercialisation which has been going on for many years. There is nothing more pleasing to recall in this Debate than the various points of view to which expression has been given on the desirability of making the week-end in this country a means by which family associations and relationships shall be strengthened and maintained. The maintenance of the traditional quality of the Sunday in this country should be encouraged by the active consideration of the House of Commons. It is remarkable that this subject, which is agitating the minds of the people of this country, should have remained so long without legislation having been carried through the Houses of Parliament. It has for years been the constant desire of great masses of the people of this country to restrict the extent to which trade was being prosecuted on the Sabbath. From the temper shown in the House to-day we are at last within reasonable distance of concentrating agreement upon the settlement, or at least the partial settlement, of this great social question.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said as much as I think could have been said in the circumstances by a representative of the Government. It is a complex Bill, and a great many questions involved in the structure of the Bill will have to be examined with care in the Committee. The hon. Gentleman expressed the agreement of the Government with the principle of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) emphasised his desire and the desire of all those who are responsible for the Measure that every Amendment reasonably possible and consistent with the fundamental principle of the Bill would be considered in the Committee. We are not willing to do anything within the scope of the Bill to inflict injustice or inconvenience upon any section of the community, but we maintain that the preservation of the Sabbath as a day of rest is fundamental, and that the elimination of the common traffic of business on Sunday is the duty of statesmanship to discharge.

An hon. Friend spoke of the way in which this Bill has been prepared. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft secured his place in the Ballot, and there were only seven or eight days in which to make the necessary preparations and to draft the Bill. The Early Closing Association and various other organisations have been engaged for a considerable time, it is true, in preparing a draft Bill to deal with this great national question, and if my hon. Friend realised the amount of negotiation and give-and-take which has had to be adjusted in the course of those seven or eight days, he would agree that everything conceivable had been done to make the Bill as perfect as it could have been made in the limited time at the disposal of the promoters. An hon. Member said that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft was a little too conciliatory in his presentation of the Bill, but we all realise that a great many embarrassing questions will be raised if the Bill goes to Committee, and my hon. Friend's diffidence this morning and his conciliatory spirit were largely due to his anxious desire to show the House that every reasonable proposal for the Amendment of the Bill will receive sympathetic consideration from the promoters.

For years past, in London particularly, and in many of our great towns, Sunday trading has been continuously increasing. Too many shops have been opening on Sunday, as has been frequently pointed out during this morning. If one trader opens his shop naturally his competitor must open also, and that process goes on in a sort of arithmetical progression until a vast assemblage of shops is open. It is amazing to think that in the Borough of Islington 75 per cent., or 80 per cent., of the shops are open for commercial trading on Sunday. That is a deplorable comment upon the moral development of our people who are engaged in trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft made clear some misunderstandings which arise in relation to industries and trades which are not to be included within the scope of the Bill. During the last few days hon. Members will have received, I have no doubt, a large number of telegrams from representatives of organisations in the licensed trade. It has been made clear that there is no intention on the part of those responsible for the Bill to include licensed houses and hotels. Telegrams have also been received from particular industries, such as that concerned with motoring accessories, who fear that their business as may be inconvenienced by the provisions of the Bill. We have had the fullest assurance that every such consideration will be eradicated from the Bill. The exemptions now in the First Schedule of the Bill make it clear that those industries will not be interfered with.

In this House this afternoon, and in this great Christian community in which we live, it is a proud thing to think that the almost unanimous view on this Measure has been that it has become essential in our public life. If we take a definite step to make the Sunday of this nation what it has been intended to be in the whole of our Christian story from the early days of the Christianisation of our people, I believe that we shall be making a great advance in the refinement of our civilisation. I believe that the Saturday and Sunday element in the public life of this country are of incalculable value by reducing to the smallest possible limits the number of trades that can be carried on to the detriment of those who work, of the Sabbath itself and of the employers who are competing one with another.

To pass this Bill would indeed be taking a great step forward in the refinement of our social and civic life. I am proud to say that we have behind us not merely the House of Commons, but, in the country, an immense volume of public opinion and a vast number of people who look forward to the enjoyment of Sunday as something which makes a contribution not merely to the pleasure of their own lives but to the comfort of their families as well as to the structure of our public life. I trust that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill and will enable it to go to a Committee where all the details can be examined, so that from the Committee the Bill may emerge as a first-class measure of social reform.

2.35 p.m.

I rise to support the-Second Reading of the Bill. When I was a young man and first became associated with the organised grocery trade, one of the measures which attracted me to that organisation was the fact that they proposed to reduce Sunday trading at that time. Some hon. Members have implied that the federations which are supporting this Measure are the large businesses, but I would like to say that the federation in which I spent many happy years is composed of 40,000 shopkeepers. The majority of them have one-man businesses, but they see the evil of Sunday trading and want to see it reduced. They are not the large businesses generally spoken of when criticism is made of this proposal. I would add that these small shopkeepers have contributed hundreds of pounds during the last 20 years towards agitation for the Measure which seems to have a prospect of passing Second Reading to-day.

It has been said that the Bill contains anomalies. All Bills contain anomalies, life is full of anomalies; but I think that the greater part of the points that have been made against the Measure can be settled and adjusted in Committee. An hon. Member, on behalf of the Opposition, said that he supported this Measure as a Socialist co-operator and an opponent of capitalism. If ever I was proud to belong to the Conservative party, the private traders and the supporters of capitalism, it is in supporting this Measure to-day. From every branch of the trade, employers and organised assist- ants, we have support for this Measure. It is true that some hon. Members representing the East End of London are opposed to it, and I rather sympathise with them, for they are in the position of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They have high ideals concerning the keeping of our traditional Sabbath, they want to do something for the shop assistants and the trade unionists, but at the same time they owe a duty to a proportion of their constituents.

I do appeal to the Home Office to remember that the East End of London is not all England, and I would ask the First Commissioner of Works to pass on to his colleague the fact that the representatives of the trade unions who are able to speak in this House on behalf of the organised shop assistants have all spoken in favour of the Measure. As usual, the once great Liberal party is divided, but I am proud to say that every speaker on the side of the House to which I belong has supported the Bill and expressed the hope that the Home Office will help to pass it through Second reading. Some hon. Members have pointed out that they do not support the Bill because of its sabbatarian aspect. I am not ashamed to confess that I am one of those people who endeavour, however much I may fail, to conduct my life on the basis of the Ten Commandments, and I think a good many of us would be better if we fulfilled them more than we do. I am not ashamed of the Sabbatarian aspect of the Bill, but I am not appealing from that standpoint to-day. I am appealing on behalf of the people engaged in the industry in which I spent the best years of my life. I have met thousands of these men all over the British Isles, and I have never met one who did not desire to see less opening of shops on the Sabbath day.

It has been said that this Bill would cause inconvenience to certain traders. I am surprised to see hon. Members on the Opposition Benches defending vested interests that have grown up during the last few years. I should have thought they would be the last people in the world to support vested interests that have grown up because of the laxity of the laws of this country. All civilisation calls for restrictions of one sort or another, but I hope this House will never refuse to apply restrictions and will never allow liberty to become licence. That is what is happening at the present time.

One hon. Member said that he would support any Measure which provided for one day's rest in seven, and that Tuesday or Thursday was as good as Sunday. Let him ask his trade unionist supporters if they approve of that observation. If his observation is correct, why do all trade unionists legitimately demand double pay for Sunday work? Does that not mean that Sunday is a better day for rest than any other day of the week? I am sorry that the interests of the constituents of some hon. Members have overridden the trade union principles which they held in the past, and I do hope that hon. Members of the Labour party will not be found going into the Lobby against a proposal which would be so beneficial to the working classes of this country. It has been said that Sabbath day business is very important, but does not the supply create the demand? Whenever shops are open—if they were open all night—there will always be some customers prepared to patronise them.

There is one other point to which I would like to refer because it has not so far been mentioned. It is very important from the point of view of the Home Office, which I hope will take note of it. Are there any inspectors of food and drugs who visit the shoes or stalls that are open on the Sabbath day, or do they have a holiday? Are the shopkeepers allowed to sell anything they wish under any conditions they like? Are the laws regarding conditions of labour and weights and measures in operation on the Sabbath day? I think those who talk about the volume of trade on Sundays are condemned by their own words; yet they must admit that so far as the quality of food and the conditions regarding weights and measures are concerned, no inspection is imposed.

Another point which was raised concerned street traders, who can only do their business on Sundays because, it was said, the people who patronise them are the poorest of the poor. As one who knows something about the business, I deny that assertion. If the people concerned have no accommodation for storing their food and have to buy almost hourly, can it be said that the places from which they buy are any better from the point of view of ventilation and health than the place to which they take the food? I think that objection cannot be maintained for a moment.

I sincerely hope the House will give overwhelming support, if not unanimous support, to this Measure. If there are any difficulties involved by it, they can be thrashed out in Committee, as in our habitual custom. I am very glad to see so much unanimity here to-day, because in the past I have been appalled by the opposition to proposals of this description. As one who, like my hon. Friend, has been interested in these matters for more years than we care to recall, I appeal to the House to give a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill, and, if it has any defects, let them be removed in Committee. We shall thereby be doing what is right to a great majority, though perhaps it may involve a little hardship to a very small minority. I am certain that the vast majority of people in this country want the Measure, and will rejoice if the House gives it a Second Reading.

2.46 p.m.

I rise to support this Measure, not because I am satisfied with it—I have long ceased to expect to see any Measure with which I shall be satisfied—but because I believe it to be a step in the right direction. I hope that the promoters of the Bill have taken note of those points which have been described as merely Committee points, because it is in the expectation that those points will be sympathetically met in Committee that some of us will vote in favour of the Bill.

I am certain that no one in the House will agree with some of the illustrations that have been used in opposition to the Bill. It might be a good idea if those who have invited us to go down to Club Row on a Sunday morning would pay a visit there themselves, for, if there is one illustration in favour of the Bill, it is that one. Club Row ought to have been subject to Act of Parliament long ago. The conditions under which things are sold there bear no comparison with what most people would regard as reasonable. You will be very lucky if you escape without having a puppy dog foisted upon you, which you buy for the purpose of dodging the importunities of others. You will see all sorts of animal life housed in conditions which are almost indescribable—poultry and fowls, for instance, which must be subjected to torture; and the incentive that prompts most people to go there is mere curiosity. More could be said on the same lines about Petticoat Lane. It is an object of interest. These two illustrations have no real substance when we are dealing with the merits of the principle of the Bill.

It is indisputable that this tendency towards a seven-day week has grown up. Whatever may have been said about Sabbatarianism, we at least ought to have some regard for the religious beliefs of those who are compelled to work on Sunday and do not desire to do so. They are engaged in supplying other people's demands, and the other people, having no religious beliefs, are compelling a sacrifice of conscience on the part of those who by economic circumstances are compelled to work seven days a week when they have a religious objection to doing so.

It has been said that, if this matter is to be dealt with properly, there must be an Act of Parliament abolishing all Sunday work. But nobody can suggest, taking the transport industry, that the railwaymen work every Sunday. That is not true. Those who work on one Sunday have the other Sundays in the month off. Those who work the trams and omnibuses also work on a rota; they do not work on every Sunday. But the people to whose case this Bill is directed are working every Sunday, and, even if we cannot in one Act of Parliament put an end to the whole evil, that is no reason why we should not deal with as much of it as we can. Everybody knows that to fulfil the demand for nothing but the complete thing is not practicable, and those who use that as an argument in opposition to the Bill are in fact assisting in the perpetuation of a system that is condemned by every reasonable thinking man or woman. There are those who would be prepared to leave things as they are, because of the hardship which, they contend, would be inflicted upon those who, as a result of custom, have built up some sort of business. But there is no progress without some sacrifice or suffering, and we have to face that fact. There is, however, too much suffering already owing to the continuation of this system.

There is one very important point to which I think the Committee will have to pay special attention. It arises in the Third Schedule. I do not agree with the form of statutory declaration; it bristles with difficulties. It means that the trader has to declare that he has Jewish religious beliefs. He might be a Jew by parentage, he might be living in a Jewish community, and his business might be exactly the same as that of the other people surrounding him, but, if he is going to speak truthfully, he cannot, because he is not an orthodox Jew, take advantage of the Schedule. That would be a hardship, and I hope it will be borne in mind. The same applies to a Christian who may live in that community. Let us assume that in some large part, it may be of the East End of London, it may be of other towns in this country, which is overwhelmingly Jewish, there are a few Christian traders. They cannot sign this declaration, which means that they may open on a Saturday but cannot open on a Sunday when all their competitors are open. Anomalies of that sort will it seems to me have to be dealt with. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, because many of the points that I had noted have been dealt with by other speakers, but I welcome the Bill, and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to make it more effective than it appears to be in its present form, and to do something to rid our country of the evil of this continual growth of Sunday trading.

2.54 p.m.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking on this Bill. As a Member of the majority party for some years, I have found that the leaders of my party appreciated me all the more if I did not speak, but allowed the Government to get on with the business. This being a Friday, and the Bill a private Member's Bill, I think a speech from any one who has anything to contribute to the Debate will perhaps be welcome. I speak with the more pleasure as I am keenly interested in this subject, and have received from my constituents of all political persuasions letters and telegrams asking me to support the Bill. While giving my hearty support to the Second Reading, I believe that the Bill will need a great deal of amendment in Committee, and for that reason I am delighted to hear that it has the general support of the Minister, because, from my own knowledge, the Mover of the Bill will find that there are a good many matters in which he will need the assistance, not only of the Minister, but of the Minister's staff, because Government Departments and the Civil Service know a great deal more than the majority of Members of Parliament.

There are a great number of anomalies which will need to be fought out, in an amicable way possibly, in Committee. One of the snares in a Bill of this sort is that there might be a tendency in some quarters to bring in local veto. I should strongly deprecate that. The Bill is brought in with the support of all parties. There may be a very few individuals who are entirely against it and there are others who have criticised it from various aspects but, generally speaking, there has been no political aspect at all, and I wish to keep it out. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. K. Davies) spoke from a political point of view, as he always does, but he was speaking, I understand, for himself and not for his party. He does go off at the deep end occasionally, as he will admit himself. I think it would be a great pity if there was any chance of local veto being brought in, because at local council elections this would always be a hone of contention and the good that is being done to-day would be undone by the local authorities, and possibly the whole aspect of a local election would be altered by this issue. Local customs and traditions cannot be suddenly wiped out.

If anything could be done to make the stages gradual, one might eventually get what one wanted, whereas if one attempted to grasp it at once one might possibly get nothing at all. These traditions, whether good or bad, have grown up, they have been criticised, but people-have got used to them, both shopkeepers and the public, and they have become a kind of general thing which people have looked upon as their right on both sides, therefore in Committee we must endeavour to do away gradually with customs which have become traditional.

There are a number of selfish people who always want to do things when it is most inconvenient to others. On a week day they will want to go out shopping on the very afternoon when there is early closing. They find on the Sabbath that they have forgotten to buy their tobacco or something else that they urgently need. I do not think the shopkeepers, more especially perhaps the shop assistants, should have to forgo their Sunday leisure and pleasure simply because there are a certain number of selfish people in the world. If people cannot get their goods at the right time, let them go without. An hon. Member wished to add to the number of things that one should be able to get on Sunday and he mentioned wireless installations and gramophone records. Those are things that are not necessary. It may be pleasurable to be able to renew your wireless set on a Sunday if it goes wrong, but it is not only a case of calling upon an individual to work on a Sunday but of having people always available.

In general we have to do our very utmost to do to others what we wish them to do by us. We all enjoy our holidays and our Sundays. Some of us enjoy Sundays for the religious aspect and some for the dual aspect of Church in the morning and golf in the afternoon. However that may be, each man is responsible for his own way of spending Sunday, and no one has a right to criticise anyone else. [An hon. Member: "Who carries your clubs?"] When I play golf, whether on Sunday or on any other day, I employ a caddie. I believe I am doing a good service to the country in giving employment. The caddie has to eat on the Sabbath the same as I do and if he earns something to buy his dinner with, I am sure he is grateful.

Supposing the caddie is religious, what then?

I think the hon. Member will agree that we cannot go into too great detail. To follow up the argument of hon. Members who are pulling my leg—I do not know if that is Parliamentary language—one might as well say that one ought to cook one's own breakfast and serve it rather than have it put on the table by those who are employed to do so. I do not blush to say that I enjoy my Sunday golf, and I see no reason why caddies should not be employed on the Sabbath if they wish to work. The Bill has been brought in with the object of protecting those who wish to rest on Sundays. In some of the new villages that are opening up, if the first shop opens on the Sabbath day all the other shops have to do ditto. It is not because they want to do so nor possibly did the first open because he wanted to, but because he was afraid that the others would and, if he did not, he would lose his trade not only on the Sabbath but throughout the week. If a person is accustomed to go into a shop on the Sabbath he will go into the same shop on other days. If we can only get the system stopped by which the first shop opened we shall have solved a good deal of our difficulty.

I support the Second Heading, but the Committee stage will be a very difficult one. I hope those who sit on the Committee will see that it becomes a good and a commonsense Bill, not one which will cause the greatest amount of hardship to any section of the community but will do the greatest amount of good.

3.5 p.m.

The House will be justified in dismissing the suggestion that there is any Sabbatarian purpose behind this Bill, especially after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell), who seems to have such an easy conscience as far as the seven-day week for caddies is concerned. One of my objections to the Bill is that it is not a consistent Bill. It is not a Bill which embodies a principle because principle is violated by every exemption that is made. We have to be guided to some extent on a matter of this kind by the opinions and interests of our constituents. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I represent a London division, not in the East End of London, but in the South-East of London. There is a large area in that part of London which has Sunday trading. An hon. Member referred to the vested interests opposed to the Bill. Surely, a Member who represents a constituency which has a direct vested interest in certain matters coming before this House has a duty to perform. He has to see that the interests of his constituents are safeguarded as far as he can make that possible. I listened with some interest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) who said that the Bill would have his support. I wonder if the Bill would have had his support supposing the local authority were permitted to close down public houses on Sundays?

The hon. Member has asked a question. The Bill would not have had my support, because the whole code of law under which we are at the present time would have been thrown into confusion by a. side wind.

I would point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) that when the last Sunday Trading Bill was introduced into this House in. 1931 by a very eminent member of the Labour party, now, unfortunately deceased, that Member specifically stated that the licensed house was dealt with by other and separate laws.

That merely demonstrates that hon. Members, being protected by the law as it stands, and their interests no longer being in danger, are indifferent to the interests that we represent. I suggest that, supposing the law did not enable public houses to remain open on Sunday and this Bill included public houses, the Measure would not have the support of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton, which only goes to show that some Members of Parliament are influenced more by their own professional interests than by the interests of the constituents whom they represent. Although I am fully aware that the manufacture of beer is one of the main industries of the constituency represented by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, nevertheless, he has an advantage under the existing law which he rather seeks to take away from interests of an entirely different class. A good deal has been said by hon. Members on this side of the House as to the possibilities of industrial organisation under the proposals in the Bill. In my Division and in my trade union there are thousands of men who work on Sunday but who do not work seven days a week. Every person who reads a daily newspaper on the Monday does so with the knowledge that a large number of printers were engaged in the production of that newspaper on the Sunday. I am glad to find that the proposer of the Second Reading of the Bill was willing to exempt the sale of Sunday newspapers from its provisions. Why? If the principle of the Bill is sound, surely it applies to every kind of sale. Every hon. Member seems to be holding the candle to the devil, even the hon. Member who goes golfing on Sunday and is prepared to employ a caddie. He is not consistent.

I lost my conscience as soon as I came to Parliament.

The hon. Member has done no such thing, because I have seen his conscience exposed on the bench opposite and I am bound to say that it is one of a very elastic character. When I go to my constituents next week I shall find that 500 or 600 of them who are engaged as street traders on Sunday will ask "what this House is doing in trying to prevent them from trading on Sunday for the convenience of men and women who cannot purchase their goods, for one reason or another, on the Saturday. They will be able to say: "Other men can go to the West End of London on the Sunday and go into expensive hotels, thereby being responsible for the employment of hundreds of men and women who minister to the pleasure of those who patronise hotels. Will the supporters of the Bill agree that if its principle is worth anything it shall be applied also to places of that kind?" What can I say to my constituents when I have to tell them: "Although your living is interfered with by this Bill, other persons can be responsible for the employment of many men and women on the Sunday." I hope that when we go to the division we shall vote with a clear idea as to whether the Bill is justified in view of the small minority of shopkeepers and shop assistants who are affected by it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, a small minority are affected. I am prepared to be corrected if that can be done. I say that the number of persons employed in shops who are affected by this Bill are certainly in the minority. The vast majority of the shops and of men and women employed do not work on Sundays. I challenge contradiction of that statement. It means that we are asked to legislate for a small minority against the interests of the very much larger number of persons who have a right to be considered.

3.15 p.m.

It is a little difficult, when we are asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill of this kind, to avoid dealing with points which can be more conveniently and more expeditiously handled in Committee, but I will try to avoid doing so by confining my remarks to the principles, as I understand them, which lie behind the Bill. The Bill can be supported from two different standpoints, the religious standpoint and the secular standpoint. In regard to the religious aspect of the matter, we have for many years enjoyed in this country the blessings of toleration in religious matters. Most of us in our ordinary day-to-day affairs, and in our social or business meetings and in politics, do not stop to inquire into the nature of a man's religious beliefs. We regard such matters as being the affair of the individual. As I listened to one or two speeches this afternoon, I wondered whether that spirit of toleration has not been a little misunderstood. It is true that we do not by law compel people to attend any particular place of worship or indeed to observe any religious exercises at all. Neither do we compel them to do this by force of public opinion; nevertheless, it remains true that this is a Christian country and that while we do not desire to compel anyone to go to a particular place of worship, we do resent the idea that those who wish to go should be prevented from doing so.

One or two hon. Members have said that if we can get six days' work and one day's rest in seven, what does it matter what day of the week it is? I would say to them that in this Christian country most of us feel that there is some difference between Sunday and any other day in the week, and that to most of us it is desirable that the fullest opportunity should be given to anyone who wishes to do so to go to his particular place of worship on Sunday. It is obvious that any extension of Sunday trading must restrict these opportunities for some people, and I suggest that from that point of view the principle underlying the Bill, to restrict trading on Sunday, can be defended on religious grounds. Before I leave that point, I would like to submit that there is much to be said for the point raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) that where it is found necessary for a person to be employed on Sundays, such employment ought not to be continuous on all Sundays.

As to the other point of view from which the Bill can be defended, namely, the secular point of view, a different set of considerations arises. With the growing application of science to industry and the increase in those processes which, for convenience, we call mechanisation, all sorts of changes are occurring in our social life, but there is one result which most of us would agree is good. It is that from this mechanisation and increase of production and so forth, there is arising a greater amount of leisure for the great mass of the people. In almost all trades the hours of work to-day are less and the opportunities for holidays greater than they were in our fathers' time. [HON. MEMBERS: "In all?"] Certainly in the case of most trades. If this principle of Sunday trading is admitted, and if in the face of evidence that Sunday trading is growing we do nothing, then it seems to me that we are allowing the growth of something which is directly contrary to this idea of increased leisure. From that point of view, it is no exaggeration to say that the development of Sunday trading is contrary to the spirit of the age, which is in favour of greater opportunities for leisure being given to the mass of the people.

If I am right in those contentions, and if on both those grounds, religious and secular, there is support of the Bill, it seems to me that the rest of the matter becomes largely one of expediency. One hon. Member said that a thing was either good or evil and that we ought either to have Sunday trading or do away with it altogether. I am afraid that such an argument would not stand the test of practical experience. Obviously, there are some services on a Sunday essential to civilised life and others not quite so essential and so on. Nobody would suggest, for instance, that no work should in a hospital on Sunday, and once you get away from obviously essential cases like that, you come to cases in which there may be a high degree of convenience in having a service on a Sunday, such, for instance, as the telephone service. It becomes purely a matter of expediency and, as the Under-Secretary of State pointed out, the struggle on this Bill will centre round the exemptions in the Schedule. Those are details, however, into which it is not suitable to go on the present occasion.

I would only say, in general, that I agree with previous speakers that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) in the drafting of the Bill has been, if anything, a little too timid. There is an old saying that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. No reforms are possible without treading on somebody's corns, and I venture to say that it would not be possible in this House to advocate any reform of importance without someone like the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) getting up and saying that the proposal meant ruin to a lot of his constituents. If anything useful is to be done under this Bill, we must not be too afraid of vested interests, whether on the part of the seller or on the part of the purchaser. We ought, I suggest, to regard purely the higher or the lesser degree of expediency in carrying on the given service on Sunday. I hope the House will agree without a Division to give the Bill a Second Reading and thus to give it the opportunity of being submitted to criticism in Committee upstairs. I hope that those who are promoting the Bill will not be too timid in their ideas as to the scope of the Bill, but will try so far as is possible, without grave and widespread public hardship, to restrict trading on Sundays altogether.

3.27 p.m.

I think everyone who has spoken on this Bill, including those who have spoken in favour of it, have agreed that the Bill as presented to the House has many unsatisfactory features, and that in particular the list of exemptions would have to be carefully looked into and probably altered in many material respects. In fact, the hon. Member who introduced the Bill said that he already desired to make some alterations in it. Those who oppose the Bill do not do so, I feel sure, for any reason such as disagreeing with the principle of restricting days of work to six a week, but because they feel that the Bill contains so many unsatisfactory features that it really would be unworkable and that it would create more abuses than it would rid us of. That, I confess, is my feeling.

I would like to point out one specially unsatisfactory feature of this Bill, and that is its omissions. Hon. Members in favour of the Bill, particularly on the opposite side of the House, have spoken with very great fervour and told us of the appalling thing it is that shopkeepers and shop assistants should have to work on Sundays, but we have not had a word of criticism regarding the thousands of people in this country who have to work on Sundays at the moment, some in sweated trades. In particular I would refer to the hotel trade; and we have not heard a word either about the growing practice of working on Sundays in the coal mines. In many districts, particularly in Scotland, the employers are making their men work on Sundays to a very much greater extent than ever before. The men have to work in spite of their strong opposition and of the strong opposition of all the local residents and of the miners' trade unions, who have appealed on this matter time and time again to the Government, but nothing happens, because, of course, there is a powerful interest involved, attempting to make money, and where there is an interest of that sort, the men can work on Sundays and nobody on the other side of the House worries about restrictions.

The same observation applies to hotels. The hotel industry is probably one of the most sweated industries in the country, but we have not had a word about the undesirability of allowing hotel workers to work on Sundays. In fact, the only reference in the Bill to hotels is specially to permit barbers to work in hotels on Sundays, however many other days of the week they may have worked. There are many other unsatisfactory features of this Bill which have been dealt with by other hon. Members. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the situation in my own constituency, where there are two Sunday markets, in Lambeth Walk and the New Cut. My constituency is somewhat different from those in the East End, because there is no religious question whatever. Only an insignificant number, either of the shopkeepers or of the people who buy, are Jewish. There has been for years past a big demand from the people of this neighbourhood to trade at these markets on Sundays. The trading in Lambeth Walk and the New Cut is very orderly, and no one could complain of it.

Recently the Lambeth Borough Council, acting under the powers which it possesses, stopped a part of Sunday trading, permitting only the sale of vegetables and meat. There was such an outcry, not only from the street traders involved, but from the whole neighbourhood who wanted to buy on Sundays, that my predecessor, Mr. Frank Briant, a keen Sabbatarian, and I approached the borough council. Mr. Briant headed a deputation to the council and said the local conditions were such that the council should restore the privileges of Sunday trading. The council did so. In a district like mine, and in many other districts, particularly in London, there is a real demand for facilities for purchasing goods on Sundays. Many of the houses are inadequate for the storage of food. The family has to sleep, eat, and live in one room; there is no proper larder accommodation, and, in the summer particularly, it is impossible to keep perishable food for more than a few hours or a day at a time. According to this Bill, those Sunday markets in Lambeth would be done away with, and it would seriously and unjustifiably interfere with the convenience of the people of the neighbourhood.

Parliament has laid down that the cinemas are to be allowed to open on Sundays and the employés in the cinemas must not work more than six days a week. I am prepared to support any Measure which will restrict the working days of all employés to six. Parliament having permitted cinemas to be opened so that people may go for pleasure on Sundays to enjoy the films, with the knowledge, however, that a large number of people will be employed, I say that in a matter which is more important than the amusement of the people, and which concerns almost a necessity of the people in an area such as mine, Parliament should also say that the people serving the stalls should be allowed to work on Sundays in the same way as people serving in cinemas, on the condition all the time, of course, that their hours are reasonable and they do not work more than six days a week. I notice that not only are mines and hotels excluded from the provisions of this Bill, which deals, it is true, only with shops, but newspapers are exempted.

It is very wise of the proposer of the Bill to omit newspapers; otherwise the opposition he would get from newspaper owners all over the country would have made the passage of the Bill impossible. Public houses are exempted too. Vested interests are all exempted from this Bill, and if their interests have been looked after in that way I say that the interests of the ordinary working men and women in Lambeth, where there is a real need in purchasing certain goods, at any rate, on Sundays should be similarly safeguarded. For this and other reasons stated by previous speakers I feel that the dangers of this Bill and the abuses likely to arise from it are greater than the abuses which it seeks to abolish, and I shall vote against it.

3.36 p.m.

There are one or two observations I want to make as a representative of one of the East End constituencies. It is admitted even by the promoters of the Bill that it will involve a certain amount of suffering by the street-trading class. We were asked not to pay too much attention to that suffering, because this class was not a very large one. It is very strange, very human, of course, how people are prepared to bear with fortitude the sufferings of others. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) was not at all concerned about the sufferings of the traders in the East End of London, but had it been a question of some of the workers in Birmingham being involved in suffering he would have been very much concerned.

I am very much concerned for the welfare of every section of workers in this country.

The hon. Member did not express his concern for the street traders of London on this occasion. I noticed, also, that an hon. Member who represents a constituency in Lancashire was not very much concerned about the hardships likely to be inflicted upon the street traders of London, but I am sure that had it been a question affecting the cotton workers in Lancashire he would have adopted a very different attitude. I suggest to hon. Members opposite who are supporting this Bill that their amenities and their comforts are not being interfered with in the least. They are not concerned about the need to buy half a pound of meat on the Sunday morning because it is impossible to keep it overnight on acount of six people living in the one room. If they go motoring on Sundays their convenience in the matter of petrol stations is not interfered with, and the very excellent restaurants at which they dine on Sunday nights and their golf clubs, are not to be interfered with. The only people suffering interference are those in the poor quarters of the East End of London.

There is one significant point: It is said that not a single speaker from the Conservative benches has opposed this Bill and, in fact, every Conservative speaker has supported it. We may draw several deductions from that. We may deduce that all the members of the Conservative party are passionately anxious to improve the lot of the working people. We may assume that they are passionately anxious to champion the rights of trade unionists. On the other hand, we may just as easily assume that the reason for their unanimity in supporting the Bill is that there is no financial interest at stake. If the interests of Messrs. Wool-worth, or of the Home and Colonial Stores, or some of the other great multiple corporations, were involved, it is just conceivable, I do not say it is certain, that we should find a speaker from the other side getting up to defend those interests. Indeed, it is possible that even the hon. Member for Moseley might, in those circumstances, get up and defend those interests. I have heard him defending similar interests in the past.

When the case was put that owing to the dreadful housing conditions Sunday morning markets were essential to allow the poor to buy their food it was suggested, I am sorry to say by a member of my own party, that the remedy was not to defend street markets but to get

better housing conditions. That is an excellent sentiment, but we have to live in the present. My people in Shoreditch and the people in Bethnal Green, Southwark, and Finsbury who are living under these dreadful housing conditions are not living under them because they like them, but out of sheer necessity, and until you have an opportunity of putting them where they are not obliged to sleep two, three, four, and five in a room, you must take note of the necessities and make provision for them to buy their meat in this way on a Sunday morning.

Finally, let me put this point as a somewhat older Parliamentarian than some of my colleagues: It has been suggested that the principle of this Bill is quite sound, and that if we want changes brought about in it, we must rely on what will happen in Committee. I would beg some of my hon. Friends who are taking comfort from that kind of assurance not to trust it, because that kind of thing is a delusion and a snare. The people who want to get the Second Reading of this Bill will be prepared to give all sorts of assurances, but my experience is that once you get a Bill up in the Committee room, those assurances are not nearly as valid as they seemed when they were given on Second Reading. When a Bill is drafted like this in the calm quiet of an office, the promoters of the Bill put down exactly what they want. This Bill as it is printed represents their real aims and intentions, and if they can possibly avoid it, they will not alter it by one jot or tittle. I beg my hon. Friends who are opposed to this Bill not to take any notice of assurances which have been given but to go into the Lobby and vote against it.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 8.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In the short time at my disposal I would like to make a most earnest appeal to the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill which has been published in my name and that of several other Members and, as has been done in the case of the previous Bill, to give it a Second Reading, and send it to a Committee for further examination without a discussion.

I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I apologise to the House for putting this Bill in the hands of hon. Members only this morning. The Bill is, however, extremely simple, and I am sure the object of it will commend it to the House. It is designed to provide better facilities for sick persons at election times, and I venture to point out that this is a greater problem than many hon. Members may realise. At every election there are somewhere between 600,000 and 700,000 people in this country who, because of age or infirmity, cannot get to the poll, or ought not to try to get to it. This is equivalent to the disenfranchisement of a city the size of Manchester or Birmingham at every election. We all know the difficulty we have with sick persons who are determined to do their duty as voters, and the risks which they run to carry out their duty. We also know that in the case of women voters there are, on any given day, approximately 100,000 women who ought not to go to the polling booth, with the possibility of having to wait in a queue, because they are either expecting children or have recently given birth to children.

This Bill provides chiefly for the taking of a ballot box by a competent officer to the houses of sick persons, or alternatively, if they are in hospitals or institutions, the appointment of the governor of the hospital or institution as a presiding officer for the purpose of securing the votes. Other methods were considered, but I do not think they are as suitable as the ones provided for in the Bill. Voting by proxy has obvious objections, such as the great difficulty of controlling the vote. The placing of sick persons on the absent voters' list would not work, even if it could be managed, because of the constant fluctuations of sick persons and the fact that the vast majority of them are not ill long enough to appear on any given register as absent voters. The only way in which they can be given the vote is by taking the ballot box to them, and I hope the House will give this Measure a Second Reading. I should have liked to explain it much more fully to the House, but I will now give way in the hope that the House may be able to come to a decision before Four o'Clock.

I beg to second the Motion.

3.55 p.m.

This follows very promptly upon an observation which I ventured to make in the course of the preceding debate, to the effect that too often we suffer from having Measures presented to the House which are not printed in time for Members to examine them. The Bill that we have been discussing during the greater part of our sitting to-day was only in our hands on Tuesday, but that is pushed even further in the case of the present Bill, because, as the hon. Member has just explained, it was only printed this morning. I am sure that no one would think that any statement made on the Floor of this House by the hon. Member and his friends was not entitled to respect, but the House must be in a position to judge for itself.

The Bill deals with a difficult subject. To the original proposal, which is directed to avoiding as far as possible the loss of their votes by sick people, there would, I imagine, be no opposition, but the question immediately arises how far in certain cases their sickness may deprive them of that sound judgment which is so necessary in giving a vote. I can imagine that an enthusiastic Member of some party or other, going into a hospital to obtain votes, might easily come across a sick person who was not in full mental vigour, and that, having induced that person to give his vote, he might be very much perturbed when he afterwards realised what he had done. There is also the question of how far anyone is entitled to go into a hospital and disturb patients in order by arguments to induce them to give a vote.

I do not think the hon. Member ought to expect to get a Second Reading for his Bill until, at any rate, the House has been able to hear his full explanation and to examine its provisions. The Committee upstairs cannot, of course, be expected to re-draft a Bill: the House should be in a position, when it gives a Bill a Second Reading, to form a judgment as to whether it is founded on sound principles and whether it is capable of amendment to make it a Measure which the House can properly accept. I am sorry to raise these objections, but, after all, the legislation that we undertake must be regarded as a serious matter, and it is a serious matter to deal with the franchise. In the case of sick persons—

It being Four of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at One minute after Four o'Clock until Monday next, 24th February.