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

When the Bill received its Second Reading it was carried by an overwhelming majority, only a few Members voting against it. Like a good many other Bills, when the Committee got to grips with the details they found that matters which had appeared comparatively simple became more complex. I think the promoters of the Bill and the representatives of the Home Office will agree with me that there has never been a Bill in Committee in regard to which, as in this case, the whole of the Members forgot any question of party allegiance and wholeheartedly endeavoured to improve the Measure. There were, of course, criticisms, but they were constructive, and there was not one hon. Member who endeavoured to spoil the Bill.

On Second Reading the Bill proposed to deal with the evil of the opening of shops on Sundays, the House realising that the evil was growing and that if it were not dealt with now it would be more difficult to deal with it as the years went on. It was proposed to deal with the evil by closing all shops on Sundays, with certain exceptions. But it was found necessary to make exemptions. Those exemptions were made in order to try and meet the position of people holding religious views which prevented them from doing business on the Saturday. To meet that position it was provided that people with conscientious religious objections to trading on Saturday should, in return for closing their businesses on Saturday, be permitted to open their shops on Sunday until 2 p.m. That was the proposal in the Bill when it went to Committee. The people who have religious objections to doing business on Saturday, we found, are Jews and Seventh Day Adventists. The Committee found, however, that in order to enforce the provision to meet these religious scruples difficulties would arise, because the Bill would stop Sunday trading for everybody except orthodox Jews.

This raised the question of the Jewish shopkeeper versus the Gentile shopkeeper. The position was further complicated by the fact that the Jewish traders are divided into two sections, the orthodox and the non-orthodox Jews. It was realised that in certain parts of London Gentile traders not being able to make a conscientious declaration of their religious objection to trading on Saturday would be unable to trade on Sunday in areas where they had so traded for a very long time. In these circumstances there would be a handicap put upon certain Gentile shopkeepers. Some of us saw that the Bill would create many other difficulties. In our discussions in Committee we were almost entirely confined to what would happen in London, but since then it has been realised that this is not entirely a London problem. We hear now of Sunday markets going on in Newcastle for 200 years and of Sunday markets in Manchester and other industrial centres. These complications suggested to some of us that we might endeavour to alter the Bill considerably by deleting the reference to persons holding certain religious opinions and merely laying down the simple proposition that if a person is prepared, irrespective of any religious belief, to sacrifice the whole of the Saturday trading, that person ought to be allowed to open on Sunday up to two o'clock.

I need not go into the question of the difficulties that may arise in certain localities as the result of the operation of the Bill. I put forward our simple proposition in Committee, but objections were taken to it. The first objection was that it would wreck the Bill. The promoters of the Bill knew perfectly well that there was no one in the Committee who wished to wreck the Bill, and no proof was put forward that we desired to wreck it. However, that argument carried certain weight with Members of the Committee. A further objection was the argument put forward by the representative of the Home Office, which is always a convincing argument, that the proposed Amendment would raise administrative difficulties. As a result of these objections my friends and I withdrew our Amendment, and we bring it forward to-day because circumstances have altered considerably.

Although our Amendment was withdrawn because the feeling of the Committee was against it, it became evident that there was a real difficulty confronting us, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) produced a Clause with the object of dealing with certain special areas, a kind of contracting-out Clause, so that the London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London might be able to meet the position that would arise in certain districts of London where the majority of shopkeepers open on Sunday, and where, if the Bill became law, the effect would be to close all the English shops on Sunday and leave the Jewish shops open. Realising the impossible position the hon. Baronet produced a proposal which is now Clause 6 of the Bill, enabling the London County Council, in conjunction with the Common Council of the City of London, to make special provisions for certain parts of London where these markets are situated. Very little mention was made of other parts of the country where similar circumstances obtain; the proposal merely segregated certain London districts and said that in these particular districts, irrespective of any religious opinions, people might open their shops on Sundays. The proposal may ease the position so far as London is concerned, but it will not solve the problem in the country. Indeed, I think it has made it more complicated, and that is the reason why I am bringing forward my proposal this morning. I have a letter here from one trade organisation which says:

"The Bill has emerged from the Committee stage extremely ambiguous."

I think it is rather unfortunate that the Report stage and Third Reading should follow so quickly on the Committee stage. My difficulty is that while I want the Bill to become law, I do not want it to be passed hastily, and for us to have to regret any provisions it may contain. The new Clause proposes to do away with the exemptions provided for Jewish traders and to permit any trader, whatever his religious belief, to open on Sunday provided his premises are closed on Saturday. I am trying to extricate the promoters from the tangle which will arise from the Bill in its present form, and from any difficulties which may arise between Jews and Gentiles, by saying that if a man is prepared to sacrifice his Saturday trade, which is usually the best day in the week, he may be permitted to open on Sunday. The London Council of the Grocers' Association and the London and Metropolitan Associations of the Grocery, Provision and Allied Trades support the proposal, largely because under the Bill, as it is drawn, there will be no diminution of Sunday trading in certain districts of London but there will be a diminution of Sunday trading in other parts, and shopkeepers in those districts where they have been allowed to open on Sundays but who will now have to close, are considerably alarmed by the possibility that there will be a tendency on the part of the population of the districts where the shops will now be closed to concentrate in those areas where Sunday trading will be going on in full swing.

At certain periods of the year it is customary for big West End firms to advertise bargain sales, which attract large numbers of women, and if the Bill passes in its present form the effect may be that in certain districts in London where the shops in the surrounding districts are closed by the Bill, those shops which will be allowed to be open will advertise sales and bargains and, consequently, there will be a tremendous exodus from other parts of London to those particular areas. Realising this, these shopkeepers protest strongly, and they have some considerable doubt as to whether it would not be better for the House to reject the Bill altogether rather than pass it in its present form. In the event of the new Clause receiving a Second Reading it will be necessary to delete Clauses 5 and 6 which deal with the question of the Jewish traders and make special provisions for London.

I beg to second the Motion.

This proposal is made necessary by an Amendment which was accepted in Committee. Anyone who compares the pro- visions of the Bill when it received its Second Reading with the provisions it now contains will realise that the principle of the Measure has been changed. On Second Reading the promoters were desirous of restricting Sunday trading, at the same time allowing those whose religious principles prevented them from trading on Saturday to open on Sunday. Owing to the difficulties which the promoters have had to face in regard to established markets, that principle has been surrendered. Where these markets are in existence the Bill now indicates that irrespective of religious views, Jew or non-Jew, the mere incident of having a business in these established markets will entitle the owner of that business to trade on Sunday morning. In that ease it is obvious, the principle having been changed, that we ought to do for the whole trading public what we are proposing to do for this particular section of the trading public. On the borders of these markets we shall have a Jew who because of his faith can open on Sunday, and next door a non-Jew who because he has not been able to make the declaration will be unable to take advantage of the situation.

My view is that the Clause which was accepted by the Committee and which detroys that principle ought not to have been accepted. It makes it necessary for us to regard the position from the standpoint of these business people, the interests of the general public and also from the standpoint of the question of the secularisation, of Sunday. I have been alarmed from my inquiries by the extension of trading on Sunday morning. It began with the things which were necessary, such as foodstuffs, but in my own division there is now a furniture shop which is open on Sunday mornings. Indeed, walking along one of the most respectable roads in the district in which I live, I saw a notice in an oilman's shop:

"Customers can be served on Sunday between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. by applying at the side door."

I am glad this Bill will prevent that sort of thing. I am certain that if people are compelled to surrender the whole of the Saturday trade, that will be sufficient to deter them from opening on Sunday morning. For those reasons I beg to second the Motion.

This is a Private Member's Bill and all are entitled to express their own views. Consequently, the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion will not mind if on one occasion I cross swords with them. This proposed new Clause would confer a privilege upon London under the law, and the first question that has to be decided is why this privilege should be conferred. Quite frankly, the colossal conceit of the Londoner offends my provincial susceptibilities, and I would like to say that London is not England and certainly not Wales.

Let me deal with the weakness of this proposed new Clause. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman is using a steam hammer to crack a nut. The problems connected with this Bill are not as big as he would like to have us believe they are. This Bill is designed primarily to meet the demands of the vast majority of the shopkeeping community in this country that they should not be called upon to work every day in the year. The only reason shops are opened on Sunday is that some members of the Jewish community open their shops on that day and in self-defence the Gentile shopkeepers open theirs as well. That is quite simple, and this Bill is therefore designed primarily to give the Jewish shopkeeper the right to declare on religious grounds that he will close all day on Saturday provided he may open until 2 o'clock on Sunday. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that if this new Clause is carried it will not only destroy the main provisions of the Bill, but will destroy the demand of 99 per cent. of the shopkeeping community and, in particuar, the shop assistants, whom I have the honour to represent in this House.

The hon. Gentleman is himself a leading co-operator. I happen to be an official of the Co-operative Employés Union. What would happen under this Clause is that any co-operative society shop would be able to open on Sunday and, without being a Sabbatarian at all, I wish to tell the hon. Gentleman frankly that all the co-operative society employés of this country and all the shopkeepers want their day's rest in the week not on Friday and not on Saturday. If they are going to have it at all, they want it on Sunday. I will go further and say that I find, to my great surprise and admiration, that all the Labour organisations I know of abroad—in France, in Belgium, in the Scandinavian countries—admire what they call the English week-end. I am determined to do all I can in my small way to see that this English weekend, this day and a half holiday every week, shall be upheld in this country and in the case of the shopkeeping community too. The hon. Gentleman must remember that there are about 3,500,000 people in this country who gain their living from shopkeeping. They are the largest section of the community so far as wages and income are concerned.

Let me say one further word before I sit down. The hon. Gentleman quoted somebody as saying that this Bill was ambiguous. Every Bill is ambiguous if one does not like it. I myself have used the same argument against a Bill, because I did not like its provisions. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Sunday markets in Manchester, but I have yet to learn that there is a. Sunday market in Manchester. Although I live there, I have never heard of one; there are Jewish shops which are open on Sunday, but I have never heard of a Sunday market. This problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a London problem. I would like, in conclusion, to ask the House to reject this proposed new Clause on the simple proposition that four-fifths of the people of this country live outside London, and that London shall not determine by law how we shall live in the provinces.

I second very strongly the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) not to accept this proposed new Clause. May I point out that Clause 5 was debated for three and a-half days in Committee and was finally carried by 27 votes to one. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion, suggested that the principle of the Bill had been changed because the new Clause 6, by allowing old-established markets in London to continue, broke into the religious question. But my hon. Friend must realise that in Schedule 1 there is any amount of exemptions which have no religious basis at all. I therefore submit that that argument must fall to the ground.

In moving the new Clause, my hon. Friend also suggested that the new Clause 6, by allowing old-established markets to open, would have the effect that in those areas sales would be advertised and everybody would flock there on Sundays in increasing numbers. I would, however, point out that Clause 6 only allows old-established street markets to continue in those areas where they already exist under the strict control of the London County Council, which has power to stop them. I, therefore, submit that that argument cannot be maintained. There is a further point. Every Committee which has investigated the question of Sunday trading has recognised the religious difficulty, and has recognised that in the case of conscientious believers in the Jewish Sabbath, whether Orthodox or Seventh Day Adventists, some allowance must be made, and I would like to quote the words which I quoted in the Committee from a letter of the Religious Liberty Association:

"If Parliament rejects the pleas of conscience in this case a precedent will have been set of which advantage will assuredly be taken when larger issues involving conscientious convictions arise in days to come." —[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 24th March, 1936; col. 135.]

I submit this final argument to the House. If this proposed new Clause is accepted, with the consequential Amendment abolishing Clause 5, what will be the result? In London anyone could open his shop on Sunday in preference to Saturday. Anyone who closes his shop on Saturday could open it on Sunday. But outside London the whole theory of making concessions to the conscientious objector would be abolished. Outside London, any orthodox Jew or any Seventh Day Adventist would be allowed to open his shop on Sunday. I suggest that that would be going against all the traditions of this House and the essential fundamental traditions of our country. I suggest that in order to make this concession to London we should be allowing an immense extension of Sunday trading in London, while preventing any concession being made to people who have strong religious feelings, anywhere in Great Britain outside London.

At the Home Office we agree with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in opposing this proposed new Clause. I think the hon. Member for Westhoughton performed a service in putting this matter in the proper perspective. He pointed out that this was, relatively, a minor matter and that we ought not to elevate it beyond its due importance. If I may add a footnote to what he said, I would point out that the House, in giving the Bill a Second Reading, desired, in general, to restrict Sunday trading. But it was realised in that Debate, and was abundantly realised later in Committee, that certain particular difficulties had to be met in applying the general principle. Those difficulties related chiefly to the position of Jews and other people who conscientiously observed a different Sabbath from that which the majority of people in this country observed, and also the position of certain old-established markets in London.

The Committee, after a great deal of work, evolved a method, and, as I believe, a practical method, of dealing with those difficulties. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) has now come forward with an alternative method, and to that extent I appreciate his motives in submitting the new Clause. But his alternative method involves an invasion of the principles of the Bill, and that is our main reason for objecting to it and for believing that his method is not so good as the method accepted by the Committee. In giving the Bill a Second Reading the House approved of the principle of a Sunday Trading Restriction Bill and not of a Bill to have one day's rest in seven. The effect of the new Clause would be to approve not the former but the latter principle. It would enable anybody, in London at any rate, who wished to do so, to open on Sunday instead of Saturday, whereas the general principle upon which we have been working hitherto is that there should be closing on Sunday with what may be called certain reliefs for those who conscientiously hold unusual beliefs. Therefore, the view at the Home Office is that it would be advisable to maintain the general system of compensation and reliefs which has been worked out in Committee, and that this new Clause would not be a good way of dealing with the difficulties.

The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), I think, unintentionally, but gravely, misrepresented the facts to the House when he said that every committee which had examined this question had reached the conclusion that some concession must be made to religious convictions in dealing with the hours of trading on of Sunday. The only committee in the last 30 years which has examined the subject faster than any other and this country is was the Select Committee of 1912, which reached the unanimous conclusion that no concession should be made or could be made to so-called religious scruples in dealing with a commercial matter such as the opening of a shop for trade and profit on Sunday. That was the unanimous report of a very strong Select Committee. No committee since has discussed the subject directly or indirectly. There has been one approach to it in the Hairdressers Act, 1930, which gave Jews the right to open on Sunday if they closed on Saturday. Before that Act was passed, the number of hairdressers' shops open for trade on Sunday in one part of London was 20. Within 12 months after the passing of the Act, the number was 130 or 140. All those other hairdressers had signed documents and declared that they had religious objections to opening on Saturday and wished to open on Sunday instead. They did so because it paid them and for no other reason.

The sort of difficulties into which we shall get under this Measure—and I support the New Clause, primarily, because it would involve the deletion of Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill—were well exemplified in the language of the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the New Clause. He spoke of the difficulties of "Gentile" shopkeepers. Since when have British people been referred to in discussions in this House as "Gentiles"? At later stage the hon. Member used the expression "Jewish versus English." That is treading upon exceedingly dangerous ground. I regret that any Bill introduced into this House should have led us to discuss the relative merits of Jews versus English. According to the law of this country either we are British subjects or we are not. Any attempt to establish by Statute what constitutes a conscientious Jew and then to segregate conscientious Jews, by means of declara- tions or undertakings to local authorities, is bound to create dangerous feelings.

The Jewish community in this country is growing faster than any other. This country is one of the few remaining strongholds of liberty in Europe. But if Clause 5 of the Bill be passed it will, I fear, become once more like other countries in Europe, the battle-ground contending religious beliefs. As I say, the Jewish community here is increasing than any other and this country is their stronghold, and I welcome and am proud of the fact that we give that community the fullest possible liberty. But when we receive circulars from Jews in Manchester demanding the right, as a matter of conscience, to keep shops open until any time of the day, because they are Jews, we must reflect that those people cannot realise the damage they are doing to their own community.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asked why this Clause to London only. The answer is because nine Jews out of 10 live in London, and the only serious competition likely to arise among retailers—and I believe 75 per cent. of the Jewish community live on retail business—will arise in London. It is in London that the difficulty and danger will occur. The passing of this New Clause would also involve the aboliton of Clause 6, which allows certain areas, subject to the concurrence of the London County Council, to contract out. I dislike that Clause very much. I believe it will have the very worst effects. We shall find extra traffic by omnibus and other means coming to these areas, which include areas scheduled for town planning and rebuilding. Those are slum areas and Clause 6 will create a fresh, permanent, vested interest in the retention of street markets and Sunday trading in particular areas which the London County Council propose, in the next 10 years, to re-design completely. We shall find that it will be far less easy for the London County Council to carry out that work if they have placed upon their shoulders the difficulties which Clause 6 will entail. They will find themselves unable, owing to popular opinion, to re-design that part of London as they would wish because it has become a great Sunday-trading centre.

I do not profess to be particularly enamoured of this proposed new Clause, but it has this great merit, that it does not raise the religious question in the form in which it is raised by the Bill. It is true that there is one precedent for a distinction by Statute between the rights of the Jews and those of the rest of the community in matters of commerce, and that is in the Factory Act of 1871, which authorises Jews to open their factories on Sundays in certain circumstances, but under the strict condition that they may be open for production and that they may not be open for sale or public business of any sort or kind. That Section is of so little value to the Jewish community that, according to figures which I quoted in the Committee, only one factory employing Jews only is working under it throughout the whole of England and Wales.

I am assured by many Jews that they do not like this Clause and that they would far prefer to do in England as the English do, to do in Rome as the Romans do. After all, the Fourth Commandment, on which this Bill is based, requires that we shall do no manner of work on the Sabbath, neither our manservant, nor our maidservant, nor our cattle, nor our stranger that is within our gates. If the Jews insist on regarding themselves—and I know they do not —as strangers within our gates, let them be bound by the same conventions as the rest of this country. We cannot possibly contemplate a breach of the weekly rest day. I admit, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that this Bill is intended to stop Sunday trading and not to give us a weekly rest day, but our weekly rest day has been for many hundred years Sunday. This Bill does not purport to abrogate or to weaken the statutory force of the Sabbath Day Observance Act, 1677, but any Clause which enables a Jew in any part of London to open a shop for any purpose provided he closes on Saturday is bound to create a disequilibrium in any street or commercial centre where it operates.

Little as I dike this proposed new Clause from many points of view, I believe it to be a far better thing than Clauses 5 and 6 as they now stand, but particularly Clause 5. I may have more to say on that Clause when we come to it, but meanwhile I can only urge the House not to reject this Clause out of hand because the promoters and the Home Office dislike it, but to realise that we are at this moment dealing with a matter of principle which will, as I believe, have a profound effect upon politics in this country in future years. I dislike having to discuss this question in the House of Commons, and I wish it had never been raised, but it having been raised, I am bound to remind the House that there has been a growth of anti-Semitism very recently in most countries of Europe, and there are indications, though it has not taken root, that the evil seed has been sown in this country. There is only one trade in which the Jews are in serious competition with their comrades in this country, and that is retail trade. I should be very sorry indeed if any enactment passed by this House should have the effect of exacerbating a situation which is at present dormant, but which might at any time become acute.

This proposed new Clause deals with London, and so far no London Member has spoken upon it. While as a London representative I am truly grateful to the hon. Members for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) and South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) for their desire for London interests, I am bound to point out that neither of those Members represents a London constituency. I rise, not to argue the merits or demerits of the proposed new Clause, but to advise my London friends that it is in London's interest that we should oppose this Clause and stand by Clause 6 as it appears in the Bill.

I strongly endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), and I oppose this proposed new Clause because it cuts at the very root of the Bill. In my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, I pointed out that in my own constituency of North Islington I called on several hundreds of tradesmen who opened on Sundays, and the only reason that I got from any one of them was that somebody else did so also. May I point out to hon. Members that there are many areas in all the boroughs in London in which there are no Jews, and that this particular Clause would give others a chance of opening on Sunday outside of those who open on Sunday and close on Saturday for conscientious reasons?

Further than that, as I read the Clause, it is quite possible, as Sunday trading has some advantages, that tradesmen in the same line of business may get together and, in order to get some of the Sunday business, come to an arrangement whereby one would close on Saturday in order to get the Sunday business. In fact, I can see nothing in this Clause to restrict Sunday trading, but I think it would act rather as an encouragement of its extension. I therefore urge hon. Members to oppose the Clause, if indeed it goes to a Division, but I would rather ask the Mover and Seconder of it to withdraw the Clause than that it should be allowed to go to a Division. I believe that if it should become part of the Bill, it would encourage and extend Sunday trading rather than restrict it.

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

A Clause with a similar aim was moved in Committee and was withdrawn because of its drafting, which meant rather more than it was meant to mean. It was too wide. It has now been re-drafted, and whatever may be said about other Clauses in the Bill, I think I can claim that this Clause at least is straightforward and easily understandable. It has been drafted with two aims in view. The first is to avoid the likelihood of this Bill being held up to all the odium which was so universally enjoyed by the Defence of the Realm Act, and the second is to aim at the same time at preserving the main Bill, that is to say, to avoid a situation in which shopkeepers have to open simply because their neighbours who are in competition with them are doing it also.

Hon. and right hon. Members will notice that, apart from the First Schedule the only concessions to seaside resorts are to be found in the Second Schedule, which deals only with the sale of bread, including rolls and fancy bread, fish, groceries, and other provisions commonly sold in grocers' shops. There are other articles which are essential for the making of a holiday by the seaside. I am thinking more particularly of bathing suits, and, as a seaside holiday is undertaken for the benefit of the children, I might add toy buckets and spades. I am proposing this new Clause for the sake of the hundreds of thousands of day trippers who go from the large cities to the seaside as for instance, from London to Southend, and who do not necessarily go equipped with the various articles they may need to complete the enjoyment of their holiday, and who expect to be able to get them there with, perhaps, some suitable message inscribed on the buckets. These people arrive at the seaside, and having put on their bathing suits, find they have forgotten some essential accessories for the enjoyment of their holiday. If they find that under this Bill they are not able to secure what they want, their holiday is ruined and there arises the very odium which I want to avoid, and which was universally enjoyed by the Defence of the Realm Act.

More important, perhaps, from the point of view of the promoters of the Bill, is that the proposed Clause will make sure that Sunday opening is acceptable in every way from the point of view of the shopkeeper and shop assistant. The Clause may appear at first sight to be somewhat sweeping. I therefore want to emphasise the restrictions which are involved in it. It applies only to seaside resorts and the order may even restrict it to certain areas in those resorts such as the beach, the promenade and shops in the vicinity of the places where these articles may be needed. Added to this, the order is allowable for only a fixed period not exceeding an aggregate of four months in any one year. Perhaps the most important point is that the order can only be made if at least two-thirds of the shops affected by the Clause are in agreement with its aim. Therefore, there is no question of competitive opening. Even if it be brought down to a reductio ad absurdum, and if only two shops in a small seaside town sell bathing suits, neither can have a two-thirds majority over the other and, therefore, there can be no question of one having to open because the other wants to do so.

This new Clause is subject to the rest of the Bill except so far as there is special provision in the Clause itself. For instance, in the matter of people being employed in these shops on a Sunday, the provisions of Clause 9 dealing with compensatory holidays, according to the hours worked on Sunday, covers seaside resorts in the same way as it does shops elsewhere. There is an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) dealing with the retail sale of meat. I do not think that that Amendment is necessary, because not only are retail traders in meat covered by Clause 4, under which they can open only in the event of two-thirds of them desiring to do so, but there is also a special Bill called the Retail Meat Dealers (Sunday Closing) Bill which, if it goes through, will over-ride anything in this Bill, and therefore renders the Amendment to this proposed Clause superfluous. This Clause has been carefully drafted, and I have reason to believe, from the way the suggestion was met in Committee, that there is no great opposition to it. It is designed to meet not only the demands of the public, but the aims of this Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

I hope the House will not give a Second Reading to the proposed Clause, which will apply not only to shops where you can obtain bathing suits, buckets and spades, but to butchers' shops, and will enable them to remain open in seaside resorts where an order has been obtained. At the Meat Traders' Federation Conference at Hastings this week, at which 475 delegates were present, the question of opening butchers' shops at seaside resorts was raised, arid only one delegate voted for or spoke in favour of such a proposal. The retail butchers of this country certainly do not wish their shops to be open on Sunday, even at the seaside.

Whatever reform is introduced, there is always a minority that must suffer or be inconvenienced. I represent the constituency of Southend, to which 1,500,000 people go during the summer months by train and boat. I have not counted the hundreds of thousands who go by car, cycle and omnibus, whose numbers cannot be estimated. For many of them it is the only holiday they get. What do they do when they get there? They go to the beach, and spend the whole day by the sea—

Can they see it?

When they can see it. They spend the time on the beach, and, eventually, at lunch time, they are hungry. If they do not bring their lunch with them and are rich, they can go to restaurants. The vast majority of them, however, are people of moderate means who do not care to go to an expensive restaurant. Why should they be deprived of the opportunity of supplementing their picnics with the things that can usually be bought on the beach like comets, sandwiches and tea? This Clause is designed to keep open the little shops along the beach which supply those things, and also supply seaside paraphernalia—toys to keep the children quiet, buckets, spades, and things like that—and I see no reason why people should not be allowed to buy these harmless little contributions to their amusement. We see children with a few pennies rushing into these little shops to buy things, and if the shops are shut the children will be deprived of part of their fun.

There is also the point of view of the small shopkeeper to be considered. I know that the Bill is designed to give shopkeepers a day of rest, but in seaside places these people have eight months rest a year—enforced idleness. In the very short season which seaside places enjoy the most important days are the 18 or 19 Sundays which come within the four months of the season, and we ought not to take away their means of livelihood as well as inconveniencing people who go to places like Southend and Blackpool. To do so would be to pass an unnecessarily inconvenient and vexatious piece of legislation which would prevent people enjoying themselves in quite harmless ways. Again I would say that it would appear to be almost class legislation to allow restaurants to remain open but to shut the little shops where one can get fried fish, sandwiches, and things of that sort. I ask the House to accept the Clause.

The promoters of the Bill, after giving this matter the most careful consideration, are in favour of this new Clause. In a Bill such as this one must have elasticity. I will give one illustration of it. We had a unanimous demand from the Association of Fish Fryers, representing the trade all over England, asking that fish-frying shops should be closed on Sundays, and we agreed and took them out of the First Schedule. But then we heard from Blackpool, which is visited every year by, I suppose, millions of poor people, cotton operatives and others, who like to get cheap meals of fried fish on Sunday afternoons and Sunday evenings, and we feel there must be some provision in the Bill to allow the grant of exemptions in such a case. The difficulty is to avoid putting in a Clause which is open to abuse and I submit that there are two provisions which provide a 'safeguard. The first is that the local authority must approve the granting of exemptions, and the second is that the local authority cannot approve unless two-thirds of those particular shops in its locality are in favour of exemption. Having no desire that hardships should be inflicted on poor class people I would ask the House to accept the Clause.

I was inclined to look favourably at this new Clause until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Southend (Mr. Channon). I would not so much object to this Clause if it were intended to cover only the things which the hon. Member mentioned, but if those who have submitted this Clause will read it again they will see how very wide are its terms. This is not a Clause to permit the sale only of bathing suits, buckets and spades, ices and sandwiches. As an hon. Member tells me, one can hire a bathing-suit for 2d. in Southend. It may be desirable in the interests of persons in a district that certain trades and businesses should be carried on on a Sunday, but if this new Clause is granted to Blackpool there will be grocery and provision shops open, there will be furniture shops open, there will be tailoring and drapery shops open, there will be radio shops open, bicycle shops open, motor car shops open, and probably aeroplane shops, too. The whole of Blackpool's shops will be open on Sundays for four months in the year—probably more so than on any other day. This is all to be done not in the interests of persons visiting Blackpool but in the interests of the shopkeeping community in Blackpool, and I sincerely trust the Home Office will not readily agree to this very wide provision.

Southend may be a seaside town entirely on its own or it may not—I do not know it at all. Someone tells me that it is a London suburb. I suppose that if I stand up long enough hon. Members will deliver my speech for me. But hon. Members must not forget that there are places where seaside towns almost abut on each other.. Take the case of St. Anne's-on-Sea, a very. respectable town, with Blackpool right near to it, and Cleveleys is also near, I think. As the hon. Member has advertised Southend I think I ought, as a Lancashire man, to say a. few words about the seaside resorts of my own county.

You are not a Lancashire man.

I ought to be, by this time. The serious proposition I wish to put forward is that we might have one of these townships adopting the provisions of this Clause and an adjoining township not doing so. The result would be competition between the two townships, and I think hon. Members will see that that would be grossly unfair. Some of us who are interested in this Bill and have followed it throughout all its stages are really apprehensive lest the shopkeeping community and shop assistants be deprived of their day of rest on Sunday by devious means, and in our opinion there are in this Clause opportunities for the introduction of those devious means. I venture to ask hon. Members who agree with my point of view to vote against the Clause if it is forced to a Division.

As the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) made a reference to the attitude of the Home Office, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I stated it. Everyone who was on the Standing Committee knows that the hon. Member played a most constructive part there, and we were so often able to reach agreement on points on which, at the outset, we had differed, that I am sorry he takes up so strong an attitude on this Clause, and I am sorry, also, that we at the Home Office cannot agree with him. The general principle which has guided the Home Office attitude on this Bill has been that we desire to see the adoption of the principle of the restriction of Sunday trading but are most anxious, also, to see that there shall be no vexatious restrictions on the legitimate demands of the public. That is the general principle which governs our attitude to this Clause, and we agree in broad outline with the case made by the hon. Member for Southend (Mr. Channon) which, as a matter of fact, could be made by Members knowing the needs of seaside resorts in all parts of the country. That case is that the Bill as it stands and without this Clause would mean serious inconvenience to hundreds of thousands, indeed, I may say millions, of working-class people, who visit seaside resorts on a Sunday, which is the day on which they are most likely to visit them in large numbers. That being the position, we think this Clause ought to be accepted. We wholeheartedly agree with the principle of this Bill, and when it is passed into law we do not wish to see large sections of the population raising an outcry against vexatious restrictions and thus, perhaps, bringing the whole principle of the Bill into unpopularity. That is our attitude. We agree with the hon. Member who moved this new Clause and we ask the House to accept it.

I wish to raise one very short point against the Clause. It really is not easily and fairly workable if we speak of seaside resorts. If we confine it to seaside resorts two or three difficulties arise. The first is that there are many important inland resorts to which the working class and other people resort in large numbers. If we are to add these resorts there will not be much of the Bill left afterwards. Secondly, what is a seaside resort? In the first place there are difficulties in deciding what is the seaside. There is one very important borough represented here to-day, and many people debate whether it is on the seaside or not. Then the question is, what is a resort? It is a question of degree, I know. I ought to welcome this Clause as a lawyer, because it will mean money for lawyers. Take the borough of Sunderland. I have not the honour of representing it but I know it very well. Most hon. Members would laugh at it being described as a seaside resort, but in fact there is inside the borough a mile or more of most beautiful sand on the sea. Is the rest of Sunderland to be submitted to all the ills that this Bill is designed to avoid, because it happens to be in the same borough? The Clause is most unhappily worded.

This Clause has the blessing of the Home Office, but it is necessary to see whether it will work. I would ask either the Home Office or the promoters of the Clause one or two questions. I understand the position to be that the local authority first of all has to satisfy itself that a place is a seaside resort. We have already had some doubt cast upon what is a seaside resort. The local authority having done this, it has to specify either the whole or a part of its area for the benefits of the Clause. Who is going to vote? Suppose the local authority has specified the so-called sea front at Southend as the part of the borough which is to have the benefit of the Clause. If the furniture dealers in Southend who sell buckets wish to apply for the benefit of this provision, who is going to vote? Are the votes to be cast by the whole of the furniture dealers in Southend or only by those furniture dealers who happen to be within the area specified? We ought to be quite clear not only on the question of what is a seaside resort and on the powers of the local authority, but as to what we are voting on.

The Under-Secretary of State has stated that he will accept this Clause, and I ask him whether he is prepared to accept Amendments exempting Ilkley, Buxton, Matlock and many other places which can properly be called inland resorts Would he consider South-sea as a seaside resort, and is Portsmouth to be exempted Then there is New Brighton, which is on an estuary and cannot properly be called a seaside resort. Is it to be called a seaside resort? Not far away are Liverpool and Bootle, which are nearer to the sea. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that he is putting the House in a somewhat difficult position. The Clause will certainly make my constituency of Kingstonupon-Hull a seaside resort, and Grimsby of course is one. Will this definition prevent Southport from being called a seaside resort? I should imagine that the Under-Secretary will now have to introduce a series of Amendments in order to exempt those delightful spots in Middlesex and Surrey, such as Godstone and similar places, which are godsends for the people of London who want really fresh air and true recreation. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has given a hint to his friends that they may vote for the Clause, because, if I could use unparliamentary language, he has put us in a hole.

This new Clause drives not a coach-and-four but a whole convoy of motor omnibuses right through the Bill. I do not wish to press any further the devastating inquiry as to what is a seaside resort and why. If the words used were "pleasure resort" the question would be easier to answer. What I had in mind was the Lakes. It is true that they are fresh water and not salt water, and are not seaside resorts, but they are far more extensively patronised by the people of Lancashire than is the rather gloomy coast at Barrow-in-Furness. We must have some proportion, and if the Clause is to be passed it certainly requires far more consideration. But I wish to speak on a particular question which I beg the Under-Secretary to answer if he can. What is the relation of this Clause to Clause 5? Under Clause 5 a Jew who declares in statutory form that he has a conscientious objection to opening on Saturday will be entitled for 12 months of the year to keep his shop open on Sunday up to two o'clock, provided it is closed on Saturday, but will he have the option during the four months of the year mentioned in this new Clause to keep open for seven days a week? There is clearly some inter-relation between the two Clauses, and I doubt not the Under-Secretary has that in mind. There are hundreds of Jews' shops in Southend and Brighton. The question will certainly arise, and may arise in an acute form. It cannot be dealt with otherwise than by some definite statement in the Bill as to what is the relation between the two Clauses.

I hope we are to have an answer to the last question, which is important. In any case we ought to say from this side to the Under-Secretary that we are very disappointed with the consideration given to this matter by the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for West houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) voiced the main objection to this Clause and showed in detail the extraordinary comprehensiveness of the powers of Sunday trading which could arise under the Clause. The Under-Secretary made no reference at all to that point. It seems to me that the Clause makes fish of one and flesh of another, as between seaside resorts and inland watering places. Does it not destroy the whole basis on which advice has been given to the Home Secretary? As this is in no sense a Government Measure or a party Measure the House ought to feel itself free to vote as it pleases upon this reaction being introduced into the Bill. I can understand, of course, that the private Member who introduced the Bill, who sits for Lowestoft, finds himself readily accepting this dilution of the improvements which are provided by the Bill. We ought not to be unduly influenced by the speech which he has just made on the matter.

I ask hon. Members of all parties to consider whether the workers in seaside resorts have not the same souls and the same bodies to be saved as workers in any other part of the country. If we are to make it possible for groups of traders in seaside resorts, by special agreement among themselves and without any reference to any other consideration, to keep people working on a day which cannot be replaced by any other day in the week in the lives of the workers, we are going too far. If the Government do not object to the general principle of the Bill, they have no case for objecting to the maintenance of the principle in all places where British citizens have to conform to the law for the benefit of the whole. I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will deal with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) and that he will not be too proud—I am sure that he will not be; I know him well—to draw back from the ill-advice which he had to adopt in his speech.

I should not have spoken on this proposed new Clause had it not been for the speech to which we have just listened. When the representative of the big and powerful societies speaks it is time that some of us put forward the position of the smaller people who have no vast capital behind them. I wish to see the position of shop assistants safeguarded, although, for other reasons, I have taken no part in the discussions on the Bill. I understand that in the new Clause these people are safeguarded, and it is because they are safeguarded that the Home Office have been able to accept the new Clause.

There is another side to the proposed new Clause. The local authorities are to be given the right, in the first place, to decide, but the big cities like London, Birmingham and Sheffield have often not a very close knowledge of local affairs such as is possessed by the local authority of a small seaside resort. All the seaside places are not Torquays, but are very much smaller and are dependent upon a short season. The small shopkeepers in them are very dependent upon their prosperity in that short time, and before we turn this proposal down we should realise that we already have in the Bill full protection for the assistants.

We can meet the wish which has been expressed in this House. The smaller shops in those seaside places can work out a scheme so that opening does not take place over a wide area, but meets a particular local need for the space of four months in the year. The position can be readjusted in other ways and by other methods. I appeal to hon. Members to accept the suggestion, as I know the needs of the smaller people in the smaller seaside resorts. I should not ask the House to do so unless I were satisfied, as I am at the moment, that the assistants in those shops will be safeguarded and looked after. I ask hon. Members to take the wider point of view and to give the benefit of the doubt to the smaller places and to their needs. There is a widespread feeling in the House that we ought not to agree to legislation which imposes too many restrictions on the various industries of the country.

I would ask the Home Office to reconsider the proposed new Clause, which I think has not been sufficiently considered up to the present. I represent a seaside Parliamentary division. Take two seaside resorts; you will have to have a different set of Regulations for each of them, and that will lead to endless complications. We have quite enough restrictions at the present time in regard to trade and enjoyment, and if a seaside resort cannot organise during the week for the accommodation and enjoyment of visitors, it is its own fault and should not be the concern of the State. Let us consider a seaside resort with a huge front, such as Brighton, on a wet day. Are the visitors to go a mile back into the town, and not to be allowed to be served with teas?

Does the hon. Member realise that two-thirds of the shops in the municipal county borough of Brighton must have moved before the local authority could act?

Surely there are enough exemptions in the First and Second Schedules already. If visitors cannot get enough under the First and Second Schedules they ought to go to another seaside resort.

As the Under-Secretary may ask leave to speak again, may I, as a representative of a seaside resort, ask him one or two questions? I cannot understand the grounds on which this Clause is being moved. When I look at the First and Second Schedules I find that every one of the instances given to the House seems to be covered by those Schedules.

Fried fish.

That is a very interesting point. Fried fish is not in the First Schedule, but in the Second Schedule there is "The sale of fish." Does that not include the sale of fried fish?

Only up to two o'clock. [Laughter.]

The intricacies of the problem can be very amusing. Even the question of buckets and spades might be got in with very much less difficulty in another place, as an Amendment to the last paragraph of the First Schedule,

"the sale of requisites for any game or sport at any premises or place where that game or sport is played or carried on,"

than by putting in this special new Clause, which opens the door wide to the closing of Sunday trade in a seaside resort. I suggest that the promoters should reserve this point and amend the Schedules in another place.

I would call the attention of the House to the observations made by the representative of the Home Office, who said that the Home Office were not agreed on this matter. If that be the fact, I hope that the House will not be carried away. If the Home Secretary were here instead of the Under-Secretary we might have had both sides of the case put this morning. I hope that the House will riot lose sight of the point that the Home Office are not agreed as to the recommendation embodied in the Bill. Another point is that the question of local option is brought in, and, if this proposal is allowed to go through, it will no doubt be followed by many others of a similar nature. I hope the House will not depart from the principle which has already been laid down in that regard.

If, by the leave of the House, I may say a word or two in reply to the points which have been raised, I shall be very pleased to do so. I do not think the House will be disposed to disagree with the general principle that I have already put forward namely, that we do not want this Bill to interfere with the supply of the daily requirements of the public, and in particular, in this case, at seaside resorts. When my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) raised the question of fried fish shops, he was getting a little into error in supposing that the opening of such shops would be permitted under the Schedule. It would not be permitted.

Surely the local authority would have power to allow the opening of fried fish shops at a seaside resort until one o'clock on Sundays?

Yes, but not in the afternoon.

No.

My Noble Friend will agree that it is a daily requirement to-day—

Not fried fish!

It is true that refreshments are permitted under the Schedule in any case, and therefore I do not think we ought to exaggerate the importance of the subject of the Clause, which is mainly intended to allow of the supply to the public at seaside resorts, on the beach and so forth, of buckets, spades and things of that kind which the public may legitimately require, and the refusal of permission to supply which might be very vexatious. Some hon. Members take up a. certain attitude towards the matter in this House, but I am afraid a very different attitude would be taken on the beach by large numbers of people who were unable to get things that they wanted on Sundays, and I do not think we should be wise in putting excessive restrictions on their doing so. I agree that we do not want to open the floodgates in this matter, but I am sure the House has examined the Clause sufficiently closely to see that there are a great many safeguards in it. I would particularly point out that the Orders which would be made would be subject to the provisions of Clause 4 of the Bill, that is to say, the local authority would have to give public notice of the proposal, and would have to obtain the agreement of not less than two-thirds of the occupiers affected by the Order in the area of the local authority; and the area affected is defined in the proposed new Clause in these words:

"Where the local authority are satisfied that their area or any part thereof is a district which is frequented as a seaside resort."

Therefore, the Order can be made with respect to the whole or a part of the local authority's area, and it can be made to apply to all the shops or to particular classes of shops. The idea upon which the Clause is based—it is not of course one which the Home Office have put forward—is that the local authority and the shop-keepers in the area. concerned are probably the best judges of the conditions in that particular area.

Turning to the question of the assistants—and I have no doubt that it is the interests of the assistants that are specially moving hon. Gentlemen opposite —I would point out that the shop assistants would receive the compensatory holidays provided by Clause 9 of the Bill. That matter was discussed in Committee, and I think the House will probably agree that these provisions are generous, providing, as they do, for a whole or a half-holiday according to the time that it is necessary to work on Sunday. Therefore I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that the interests of the shop assistants are well safeguarded in this matter. While we at the Home Office believe that this is a principle which ought to be supported, and while I think that as a matter of fact the Clause does really carry out that principle in a reasonable way, we are not, of course, in any way particularly attached to the detailed provisions of the Clause, and if my Noble Friend or any other Member of the House thinks that they require further consideration, we should have a very open mind if proposals were put forward for Amendments in another place.

Would it not be possible to include in the Schedule those articles which my hon. Friend considers the public would desire to buy, and thus obviate the passing of this Clause, which would open the door so widely to the possibility of trading on Sundays?

Would the Under-Secretary consider the advisability of including inland watering places?

The Under-Secretary did not clear up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan). He said that two-thirds of the shopkeepers would have to approve, but the words of Sub-section (1) of Clause 4 are

"that the occupiers of not less than two-thirds in number of the shops to be affected by the order approve the order."

Therefore, if there, are only three shops on the front, and the occupiers of those three shops desire to open, it does not in the least matter, if those three are in favour of opening, what the rest of the shopkeepers think, if only the front is to be included in the Order. I think the Under-Secretary ought to say what is the correct interpretation of that provision.

I should like to ask two questions. In the first place, do I understand that the Under-Secretary is in charge of the Bill; or is it a private Member's Bill? In the second place, are not fried fish shops bona fide refreshment houses, and therefore entitled to the same privileges as any other refreshment houses in the town, whether hotels or otherwise? Further, I should like to ask why it is possible to sell shrimps on a Sunday afternoon and not fried fish and chip potatoes.

It is proposed that the local authority should be given power to allow the opening of shops provided that certain conditions under Clause 4 of the Bill are fulfilled, but I am not quite clear whether, provided those conditions are fulfilled, they can allow shops to open for any length of time on Sundays, or whether they can choose what hours they think fit.

As representing a place which is undoubtedly a seaside resort, I must say that the position suggested by the supporters of the proposed new Clause and described by the Under-Secretary still leaves me, and, I believe, the whole House, in a state of some misunderstanding. The implications of the Clause are very wide indeed, and personally I feel that both the Home Office and all of those Members who are interested in this problem would appreciate an opportunity of considering the matter further. I beg the Mover of the Clause to consider whether it would not be wise in the interests of the Bill as a whole to withdraw it in order that the whole question may have further consideration.

I was rather disappointed when my hon. Friend opposite and the Under-Secretary supported the Clause. We are apt to forget that the object of the Bill is to restrict, and not to increase, Sunday trading. I hope the Clause will be withdrawn and something substituted for it in another place which will meet the wishes of all of us.

I believe it is the wish of the House that a Bill of this sort should go through to-day. If we go on arguing for an hour or two on one Clause, it will never go through. I suggest that the Clause be withdrawn straightaway and that we get on with the business.

I am prepared to withdraw the Clause on the understanding that it may be reconsidered and redrafted in another place and narrowed down to the specific articles that have been mentioned.

I hope we shall divide on this question, and not allow it to go to another place. Many of us made up our minds in Committee. We ought not to take up the time of the House on such a comparatively minor point as bathing suits and buckets, as if everyone went to the seaside on Sunday and no other day. I object, as a Member of this major House, to it being left to another place.

As representing a seaside resort which caters for summer visitors, I am in a quandary. I want to support restrictions on Sunday trading, but I do not want hardships to be imposed in this loose manner and to confiscate the interests of people, many of whom are ex-service men. This is an ill-considered Measure which will inflict hardship on hundreds of thousands of people. I keep a restaurant myself, though mine is not a fish shop. I think this is one of the most ill-considered things that ever came before the House of Commons. I shall vote against the whole Measure if consideration is not given to this matter. I ask the Minister to say whether this will be left to the local shopkeepers, or whether their interests are to. be confiscated.

The position is that fried fish shops in a seaside resort could open if a majority of two-thirds of the shops concerned expressed the desire and the local authority made an Order. That is, under the new Clause, but there is no provision in the Bill at present for that to. happen. That is one of the reasons why I am in favour of the Clause. But, as there has been a certain measure of misunderstanding, it would be far the most, practicable thing for the Clause to be withdrawn and properly considered at leisure in another place.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out "Saturday as the, "and to insert "the Jewish."

The Clause refers to persons who observe Saturday as the Sabbath. It has been pointed out that Saturday is. observed as the Sabbath by Seventh Day Adventists as well as by Jews. It is proposed to make the words read "regularly observing the Jewish Sabbath."

I am a little astonished at the hon. Gentleman proposing to alter these words after the discussion that we had upstairs, because I understood that the position was this Saturday in this country is understood, under the Shops Acts, as a day comprising a certain number of hours. The Jewish Sabbath runs from Friday sunset until Saturday sunset. We have raised this point before, and I put it to the hon. Gentleman once again. Will it be possible, if we carry the Amendment, for a Jewish shop after sunset on Saturday to open? I understand that the Jewish sabbath ends about four o'clock on Saturday afternoon. In Manchester, where I live, the sun rises about seven o'clock in the morning, and sets again in about an hour and a half and consequently the period may be very short and the Jews will be able to call that a Sabbath day. The point is a very important one. The Jewish shopkeeper, under the Bill, is going to give up a Saturday, and now he has made representations to the Home Office and to promoters of the Bill that he wants to alter the word "Saturday" into "the Jewish Sabbath." The result will be that he will close when he likes on Friday night, but as soon as the Jewish Sabbath is over at four o'clock on the Saturday he will be able to open his shop and enter into afternoon competition with other shop keepers.

This looks like a proposal to extend the privileges to Jewish shopkeepers beyond that which was intended when the Bill secured a Second Reading. I would say to the promoters of the Bill, that if there is anything that they have done to help to make it an impossible Bill, it is to accede to every request that comes from everyone. Indeed, I am not sure that they have acceded to every request from everybody except from Members of Parliament, myself included. I request at this stage that they will adhere to the word "Saturday" in the Bill, because it is understood under the law as covered by the Shops Acts ever since they were passed. I am astonished at the Home Office accepting this alteration after what we did upstairs.

If it means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said, that the Jewish Sabbath begins on Friday at sundown and ends on Saturday at sundown and that these traders are to be allowed to open on Saturday evening—the best part of the day—and then to be open all day on Sunday, one can imagine what is likely to happen, particularly in the East End of London. In view of the debates that we had in Committee, and the feel- ing that was expressed there, I am really surprised that the Home Office should come forward with a proposal of this kind.

I feel that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Member for Sedge-field (Mr. Leslie) have spoken under a misapprehension. They appeared to think that the insertion of these words would have the effect of allowing orthodox Jews to open at sunset on Saturday, but I would point out that the whole question of hours of opening is very strictly laid clown throughout the Bill. This is simply a matter of phraseology to meet merely the case of the Seventh Day Adventists and those who conscientiously believe that the Jewish sabbath must be kept. How can you include them if the phrase is, "observing Saturday as the Sabbath"? It does not cover the Seventh Day Adventists. Hon. Members will appreciate that fact.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that, if the House accepts this Amendment, it will not be possible for a Jewish shopkeeper to open his shop from 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon until closing time on that day?

Certainly. I suggest that it is merely a drafting Amendment, and it covers the Seventh Day Adventists. If it is "Saturday," it does not cover them. They observe the Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, the Jewish Sabbath, and therefore we have to alter the wording.

It we are to regard this as a drafting Amendment, we must now have a definition in the Schedule as to what the Jewish Sabbath is. It is a perfectly well-known institution. It runs from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. The universal custom, as shown by the Select Committee of this House of 1843 was then, and still is, for orthodox Jews to cease all forms of business from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, and thereafter to open their shops. Evidence to that effect is on record in the Report of the Select Committee of 1843, and again in the Report of the Select Committee of 1912. The Clause will not be regarded by the courts to mean what the promoters of the Bill imagine it to mean. This is not a drafting Amendment at all; it is a vital Amendment. It is another coach-and-four driven through the Bill in order to put Jews into a position, which the rest of the community do not occupy, of being able to open from sunset, which in Aberdeen may be three o'clock, till closing time on Saturday, providing they close from sunset to closing time on the worst trading day of the week, which is Friday. It is destructive of all the relations which we hope will continue to exist between shopkeepers of different religions. It will give Jews and Adventists a further great advantage, and I have no hesitation in urging the House to reject the Amendment forthwith as being completely inconsistent with the whole tenor of our discussions.

When this question was raised in the Committee we were solemnly assured by the Home Office that the administrative difficulties in giving effect to the provisions would make it impossible to apply them. I do not agree as to the administrative difficulties, but I am certain that we shall have very serious trouble with shopkeepers all over England if the Jewish shopkeepers are to have their shops open during the time of really good business on Saturday night and then again on Sunday morning. We have been discussing Southend. Something like half of all the shops on the sea front in Southend are occupied by Jews. What will be the result? Half of the whole of the shops in Southend open on Saturday night, and then again on Sunday morning until two o'clock. I can give no other meaning to the Jewish Sabbath. I have studied the question. I know the practice in Palestine to-day. The horn blows at sunset on Friday and then it blows again at sunset on Saturday, and the shops open, and business is done. This is a most dangerous Amendment.

Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman read Clause 5, Subsection (2, a) where it definitely states that the shop shall not be open on Saturday?

In that case, why put in the word "Jewish"? The interjection of the hon. Member is well in-

If there were anything in the law that my hon. and gallant Friend has expressed, I think that we should all share his point of view, that the Amendment, is most undesirable, but surely what my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) has pointed out is conclusive. It states quite clearly that the person who comes Within the benefit of this Clause may not open his shop on Saturday. All that we are now doing is defining those people who are liable to open on Sunday and are compelled, if they open on Sunday, to shut on Saturday. Altering the words from the people who regularly "observe Saturday as the Sabbath" to those who "observe the Jewish Sabbath" does not mean any removal of the prohibition against opening on Saturday. It is a means of defining those persons who are to be entitled to open on Sundays.

The number of orthodox Jews in this country who genuinely observe the Jewish Sabbath is, for practical purposes, negligible, and that is very well known. We are opening here a new door in legislation. It is a completely new precedent to make special allowances for Jews or others in regard to the Sabbath in this way. It is a most dangerous thing. It may not be technically correct to say that Jews observe Saturday, but it has been, good enough for them for the last 100 years, and it ought to be good enough for us now. I can only again refer to the Factory Act, 1871.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, to leave out "two," and to insert "six."

In my opinion this is a Bill to legalise rather than restrict Sunday trading, and, therefore, in dealing with Clause 5, where provision is made for Jewish traders, one has to bear in mind the fact that whatever happens Jewish traders will lose considerable advantages which they have hitherto obtained because of a custom which has grown up during past years. Despite what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), Bills which have been passed by this House have had regard to the Jewish faith. When the Bill dealing with the humane slaughter of animals was being considered, a Clause was inserted allowing the Jewish method of killing in order that the conditions of the Jewish faith might not be violated. It seems to me that in the Committee stage of this Bill a bargain of some sort was struck. Permission has been given to Jewish traders, under certain conditions, to trade on the Christian Sabbath, but they have had to relinquish certain rights in order to obtain a certain number of hours trading on Sunday. There was a recognition in the Committee of the religious difficulties and the conscientious scruples of the Jewish people, and for a relinquishment of 15 hours trading during the week-end they have been allowed by the Bill five hours trading on Sunday.

Statistics obtained from different quarters show that from 9 a.m. on Friday until Monday morning at the same time the maximum trading time allowed to the ordinary trader is 23 hours, but the orthodox Jew will lose from nine to 10 hours trading in comparison with his now more favoured competitors. In many districts where Jewish traders have carried on their work hitherto it has been a condition that there should be a closed shop during the whole of the Saturday. I submit that under retail trade conditions the week-end trade produces the volume of the week's turnover, and if a shopkeeper is willing to close down on a Saturday because of conscience he must be willing to make a big sacrifice—a sacrifice which can only be met by a spirit of tolerance. I am given to understand that over 50 per cent. of the week's turnover operates at the week-end, and for the loss of that Saturday the Committee have been prepared to agree to five hours trading on Sunday. Because of the habits of the people very little trade can be done on Sundays before 11 o'clock in the morning, and, therefore, you are actually restricting the trading time of the Jewish trader to three hours on the Sunday, which has to cover the week-end.

Many Jewish shopkeepers cater exclusively for a Jewish trade. In my own district, and in other parts of London, there are a great number of Jewish shopkeepers whose clientele is composed entirely of Jewish people, and Sunday to them is not the Sabbath day. That is a point which should be borne in mind. We are faced with a position where the Committee has recommended that the Jewish trader should be allowed to trade up to 2 o'clock on Sunday. He is to lose six hours of trading time as compared with the full day of the ordinary trader. In reading the proceedings in Committee I gather that there are hon. Members who feel that this constitutes an unfair limitation of hours, and I think the Committee was largely impressed by statements made concerning the views of the Jewish Board of Deputies, who, it was said, were in favour of a 2 o'clock closing on Sunday. At a later stage it was shown that this statement was not in conformity with the views of that body, and the Jewish Board of Deputies have since said that they feel it would be a fair compromise if the hour could be extended to 6 o'clock. Originally the Jewish Board of Deputies hoped that a position could be reached where orthodox Jews might be permitted to open from sunset to sunset, but, apparently, there were administrative difficulties which prevented this being done.

I suggest that these shops meet a need, particularly in some parts of London. A remarkable feature about London life is that where overcrowding is most rife you find these market places. In my own constituency, where an overcrowding survey has proved that more than one-fifth of the people are living in overcrowded conditions, where it is a commonplace for a number of adults to be living in one or two rooms, it is essential that there should be some opportunity of marketing for these people on Sunday. I know that the Committee endeavoured to surmount the difficulty in regard to the question of shop assistants, but I submit that adequate safeguards have been provided for them, even if the House is prepared to agree to a 6 o'clock closing on Sundays instead of 2 o'clock. The Bill provides safeguards against evasions, but we should welcome the most stringent regulations to prevent any possible evasions.

I submit that under these new conditions an orthodox Jew is placed at a trading disadvantage. It should be remembered that many of these Jewish traders were born in, and are citizens of, this country. The week-end is naturally the period of brisk trade, and because of their religious principles the Jewish traders have to forgo many of the advantages that would accrue to them if it were not necessary for them to close their establishments on their Sabbath. We in this country have always prided ourselves in our belief in religious liberty for all and our tolerance. I know there have been in the past, are at present and will be in the future, diametrically opposed points of view held by political parties in the House and the country, but on the whole we have met those differences with a certain amount of tolerance. There is a newer political philosophy which does not recognise tolerance and which particularly wishes to deal partially with the Jewish people. I hope the day will not come when this country will emulate the actions of that political philosophy which operates in other countries.

Legislation that may be passed by this House should embody a recognition of the right of people in this country to have religious scruples. We ought to be prepared to avoid the unfair distinctions that are enforced elsewhere, and I hope that after due consideration the House will be ready to accept this Amendment and, in a spirit of compromise, to give to the Jewish trader, in place of a nine o'clock closing on Saturday, a six o'clock closing on Sunday. They have made a measure of sacrifice for their religious beliefs, and, in my judgment, equity and justice can only be met by an agreement on a closing time that will not inflict too great a hardship upon the Jewish traders of this country.

I rise to support this Amendment on the ground, first, that it is the proud inheritance of this House and this country to give due credit and to make every allowance for the religious beliefs of the people of this country, no matter what their race or creed may be. I believe wholeheartedly in the main principles of this Bill, which are to safeguard the rest and the leisure of the workers of this country, and I believe it is of the highest importance that one day—the day which one's religious conscience desires—should be sacredly observed. If this country were Palestine, if there were a nation of Jews here and no toleration or regard for the Lord's Day, and if there were sufficient proof of there being Christians in the country, we would make to the Jewish people the same representations which, I as a. Christian, am now making on their behalf. The intention of this Bill is excellent, but in my opinion it involves a very grave injustice to the Jewish people and those who have zealously regarded Friday night and Saturday as their Sabbath Day.

How many of them are there?

That does not matter. The principle I advocate is not dictated by numbers, but by a conscientious regard for one's religion.

And commercial greed.

That may be the hon. and gallant Member's opinion, but it is not mine. My experience is that there are many people in trading districts who close their shops on Friday night and all day Saturday, and they do not do that because of commercial greed.

There are very few who do it.

There may be considerably more than my hon. and gallant Friend supposes. What is the position under this Bill? With the indulgence of the House I will read a table of the comparative trading hours during the week-end for orthodox Jewish traders and others. The orthodox Jewish traders will open their shops from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Friday; on Saturday not at all, and on Sunday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., a total of nine hours. Other traders will open on Friday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.; on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and on Sunday not at all, a total of 23 hours, while the shops of other traders in the scheduled areas may be open 28 hours. The table of the afternoon trading hours is as follows: the orthodox Jewish traders will not be able to open their shops on the afternoon of Friday, on Saturday or on Sunday. Therefore, so far as afternoon trading hours are concerned, on three days of the week, there will be no opening of their shops. Other traders will be able to open their shops on Friday from 2 p.m. until 8 p.m: on Saturday from 2 p.m. until 9 p.m., and on Sunday not at all. This makes a total of 13 hours of afternoon trading compared with no trading by the Jews. In addition, let me remind my hon. Friend who spoke of commercial greed that those people who close on Friday night and Saturday observe 13 other days during the year on which their shops are completely closed because of their religion.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to have those days scheduled as compulsory closing days in respect of Jews?

I understand that orthodox Jews would be delighted to have them scheduled if they could obtain this privilege. I have shown that the orthodox Jews, because of their religion, are to he compelled to close their shops three evenings a week; in other words, on account of their religion they are to be deprived of the vital week-end trade.

Will the hon. and gallant Member say to what extent the table he has read will be affected by the Amendment which has just been adopted? That Amendment left out the words "Saturday as the" and inserted, "the Jewish," thereby enabling the Jewish trader to trade after sundown on Saturday.

No, it does not do any such thing. I am reminded, too, that a substantial number of assistants, estimated to be over 10,000, are employed in sales and office work in these shops and that their livelihood would be imperilled. I would also point out to hon. Members that, in addition to the hours which I have already mentioned, Thursday in many localities is an early closing day. I ask that orthodox Jews should not be placed by this House in the position of being compelled to choose between their religion and their livelihood.

I have not taken part in any of the Debates on this Bill, and I was not a Member of the Standing Committee, and if I should use arguments which have been used already, the House will forgive me. I come to the problem with a fresh mind. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. J. Hall), in an eloquent speech, urged us to remove all disabilities from those who practise the Jewish faith and made a reference to the condition of affairs abroad. I think I have played my part, as other hon. Members have done, in denouncing the Nazi treatment of the Jews and I am sure that we all want to see that those who practise that faith receive as fair a deal as possible. Everybody in this country has acquired a high degree of religious toleration and the last thing we want to do is to penalise any one on account of his faith.

I oppose this Amendment because I believe that its effect would be to annul the whole purpose of the Bill. This country is blessed with the British Sunday and when one travels abroad, one realises how lucky we are in having one day of the week set aside as different from any other day. I appreciate the fact that the Saturday Sabbath of the Jews means the same to them as the Christian Sunday does to us. But I ask the House to consider the case of a Jewish shop being allowed to remain open until six o'clock on Sunday, especially in an area where the Jewish people did not predominate. All the people in the locality who wanted to make purchases would flock to that shop. Then the Christian shopkeepers would be up in arms and there would be a great movement which you might not be able to resist, for the opening of all shops throughout the country on Sunday. The House has gone as far as it can in. trying to meet the disabilities of those who hold the Jewish faith. Surely the supporters of the Amendment want to see this Bill workable and in operation. If they believe in the principle of the Bill, I ask them not to press an Amendment which would destroy it.

I oppose the Amendment. Far too many concessions have already been given, and if there is any further watering-down of the Bill, it will cease to be a Sunday Trading Restriction Bill and become a Sunday Trading Extension Bill. It is to be remembered that Sunday trading at present is illegal. This Bill will make it legal and therefore we must be careful not to extend it any further. However sympathetic we may be to the Jews on general grounds, we cannot forget our experience of the Hairdressers Act. I do not want to see any more of that sort of thing. If all these shops close at two o'clock nobody will lose by it. People will know that they must do their shopping before two o'clock and will arrange to do their shopping before that hour. If it be the case that Jewish shopkeepers, in many cases, cater only for their own people, surely, then, the defenders of the faith will see to it that Jewish traders do not suffer and will come out in time to do their shopping before two o'clock.

I submit that the statement made as to the comparative number of hours of opening is exaggerated. It is not the case that all shops remain open until 8 o'clock on Friday and 9 o'clock on Saturday. If there is a local closing order, the hour is 7 o'clock and in the case of the Cooperative Societies it is 6 o'clock. It is an exaggeration to suggest that the Jewish shopkeeper would lose so many hours. In my opposition to this Amendment I represent the organised Jewish workers. The Jewish workers employed by Jews in the East End of London want 2 o'clock closing and I am justified in saying that I represent the workers interest in this matter more than the Mover of the Amendment does. As there is no legal limitation on the working hours of shop assistants, except those under 18, it does not necessarily mean that when the shops close, whether at 2 o'clock or 6 o'clock, the assistants will necessarily be free. The assistants may be kept in the shop for many hours afterwards. The Government made a mistake when they did not put into operation the findings of the Select Committee of 1931. They could easily have done so because the distributive industry is a domestic one, with no foreign competition and involving no international complication. I hope the House will stand by the Bill as now presented and refuse to extend these hours beyond 2 o'clock.

I sincerely hope the Amendment will not be accepted. In Committee a large number of compromises have been arrived at, and a great many concessions have been made, with the result that the Bill now appears to be riddled with holes. It is like the Irishman's definition of a net—a lot of holes joined together by pieces of string. It would be unwise to go any further than we have gone in the matter of the opening hours for persons of the Jewish faith on Sunday. The Jews who close on Saturday will be allowed five hours on Sunday. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. J. H. Hall) said the Jews were giving up 15 hours on Saturday and getting only five hours in return.

If I said that they were giving up 15 hours on Saturday that was a mistake. They give up 15 hours at the week-end, namely, three hours on Friday night and 12 hours on Saturday.

But this is the point I am trying to make. If he opens on Saturday, he is subjected to very fierce competition indeed from Christian shopkeepers, whereas on Sunday, supposing he closes on Saturday, he has an absolutely free run and no competition from Christian shopkeepers at all. The five hours on Sunday are, therefore, incredibly more valuable than the hours which he gives up on Saturday. The general lines on which this Bill is conceived are, I take it, to try to enforce the sanctity of the Sunday in this country, and, acting on the general principles of toleration which have so happily distinguished this country for the last 200 years, a very important exception and concession has been given to those of the Jewish race. I think we should remember that it is an exception and a concession, and I do not think it is wise or right to try to interfere with this sanctity of the Sunday in the country as a whole. If we make an exception, as we are doing in this Bill, I think it should be taken as an exception and a concession and not as a right. I hope that we have no feeling of lack of toleration or wish to persecute the Jews in any respect. At the same time, this concession is a valuable one, and if you extend the permited hours of opening for Jews on Sunday for an additional four hours, you will be giving them a very great advantage over the great majority of the Christian shopkeepers of the country, and that, I think, would be very unwise and inadvisable.

I wish to add my voice very briefly to the list of those who oppose this Amendment and to hope that it will not be considered for a moment. In my view, it is impossible to over-estimate the damage that may be done in many areas by Clause 5 as it stands, and it will be very much worse if it is amended as is here proposed. There will be nothing to prevent the great majority of shops in all seaside resorts being open all day on Sunday, for who can doubt that some Christian will find some orthodox Jew, with whom he will associate himself in the form of a limited liability company, owning a shop, who will make the necessary statutory declaration that the majority of the directors, namely, two out of three, are orthodox Jews, and that the shop will be opened on Sunday and a very great advantage will follow? These things are inevitable, and I can visualise that Mr. Smith, of Brighton or Southend, or of Brighton and Southend, and many other resorts, will form a company, of which he is one director, the two other directors being orthodox Jews who have signed the so-called statutory declaration, and will thereupon have small shops which will open on Sunday and close on Saturday. Next door there will be a shop owned by Mr. Smith in another capacity, which will be open on Saturday and closed on Sunday. He may well take a large shop, divide it into two for purposes of rating and ownership, and thereupon have one opened by "T. Smith (1929), Limited," and the other shop opened by "T. Smith (1930), Limited," and he will have seven-days-a-week trading all the year round.

It is perfectly well known to us all that the great majority of Jews in this country are engaged directly or indirectly in retail trade, and it is also well known that their numbers are increasing more rapidly than those of any other community, for reasons beyond their control and ours. We are proud to think that they find in England a refuge and a home where they may enjoy freedom, but when they ask, or when persons ask on their behalf—and I notice that none of that community has said a word in favour of this Amendment—that they should have yet further commercial advantages under the guise of religious tolerance, I think they are doing themselves a great injury. It is suggested by one of the supporters of the Amendment that they would be willing, in exchange for this, to forgo their 13 holy days, but I very greatly doubt whether they would be prepared to put that into the form of a Clause. They have at least been careful not to mention it either directly or indirectly in Committee or elsewhere.

The Jewish orthodox community is not to be found only in this country. I have been at pains to ascertain what is the position in other countries, and I find that, with very few exceptions indeed, there is no provision in other countries giving exemptions to Jews from the general laws of those countries. As I have said before, the Fourth Commandment, under which our Sabbath day observance is based, lays it, down that we shall do no manner of work on one day in the week, neither our maidservant, nor our manservant, nor our cattle, nor our stranger within our gates, and interpreting the "stranger within our gates" as being one who is not of our faith, if he comes to England and lives here as a British subject and as a useful member of the community, he should observe the weekly rest-day like the rest of us. I do not believe the orthodox Jewish trader has any real grievances. He has retained his orthodoxy for the last 100 years. As so many Members were not here at eleven o'clock may I again remind the House that in 1912 the whole question of Sunday trading was considered by a Select Committee, not by a hasty Committee, but by a Committee which heard evidence, and they unanimously decided against any form of Sunday opening for Jews? How much more, therefore, should we now object to an Amendment which seeks to extend the hours until six o'clock and thus render nugatory, so far as it has not already been rendered nugatory, the whole purpose indicated by the Title of this Bill, namely, "Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) Bill."

I think it would be wrong if the impression were to obtain that the opponents of the Amendment would for one moment consider anything that was in the nature of a hardship on either the Jewish or any other section of the community. In actual fact this Amendment does not do as much as is expected of it. The week-end trade is different entirely from the ordinary week trade. During the week the shopping public purchase in an indiscriminate manner those things which they need at the time. There is no settled plan; they purchase the articles that they want from hour to hour. But the week-end trade is of an entirely different nature. At the week-end the shopping public purchase stocks of commodities of a character that will last them during the week, such things as household necessities and those articles that will not be damaged by being left throughout the week. The week-end shopping, then, is usually conducted by those who know definitely what they want, and if you were to take a census, you would find that the housewife who shops on Saturday will compress into two hours the whole of the shopping that she does.

Some of them do it on Saturday morning, some of them on Saturday afternoon, and some profit by having their husbands with them to do it on Saturday evening, but those will be compelled to do it on Sunday, because now the Jewish public will be spending their money on the Sunday, as the Jewish shopkeepers will be open for that purpose. That type of week-end shopping will be exactly the same as is done by the non-Jews, and the Jewish housewife can get what she wants within the space of time allowed under the provisions of the Bill as it is. Opening up to 2 o'clock provides adequate time for all the shopping that is required to be done, and there can be no hardship in limiting the time to that hour. There is a certain volume of trade to be done and it will be compressed within those hours. The Amendment would extend the time during which that money could be spent, but no more money would be spent. We were told in Committee that such an Amendment would destroy the Bill, and we have given away far more than we ought to have done, but if at this juncture we are asked to concede 6 o'clock we shall destroy what value the Bill has.

I appeal to the proposer of the Amendment to withdraw it in the interests of the Jews. The last thing we want in this country is a racial or religious animosity against one section of the community. I can foresee that if a Jewish shop is kept open until 6 o'clock the Christian community will feel deep resentment. They will ignore the fact that it is closed the day before, and they will certainly resent it being open when others are compelled to close. We pride ourselves in this country on not having the Continental Sabbath, but my experience of the Continent is that even at 2 o'clock they close on the Sabbath day and very little is open after that hour. Yet we are proposing to extend to the Christian Sabbath in this country opening until 6 o'clock. As one who has worked for the proposals in the Bill for a great number of years, I say frankly that if the Amendment is carried I shall have very little use for the Bill, and the majority of shopkeepers will feel the same.

The evidence produced during the Debate is substantially against the Amendment, and I hope that the appeal made by the last speaker will be heard and that the Amendment will be withdrawn. For many years we had an agitation over the reduction in the hours during which shops could be kept open. We should discipline the public to shop at reasonable hours, and I am sure that the Jewish community will appreciate that cardinal point. As the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has put it, people have a certain amount of money to spend and they should be able to spend it within the hours that are allotted if they discipline themselves. I can remember that when I was a youth shops were kept open until 11 and 12 o'clock on Saturday night and naturally people who were not disciplined to shop within reasonable hours would go along late at night regardless of the inconvenience to shop assistants and other people. I hope that the Jewish fraternity will realise that if they wish to avoid creating anti-Semitic feeling in this country they will not ask for privileges beyond those normally given to other communities.

I could agree with many reasons against the Amendment were we not faced with the existing opening on Sunday. The opponents seem to assume that there is no Sunday trading at present and that we are giving shopkeepers in this Bill fresh advantages which they have not hitherto enjoyed. The fact is that a large number of shops are open on Sunday up to 8 o'clock so that the Amendment, in fixing the hour at 6 o'clock, is in fact imposing a reduction. I would, however, join in the appeal to the Mover not to take the Amendment to a Division, for it is clear that the concensus of opinion in the House is against a change and we must accept the fact that we cannot carry it.

I want to support the appeal which has been made to the Mover to withdraw the Amendment. I am sure he must realise that the atmosphere of the House is against accepting it. The promoters feel that they cannot accept the Amendment because it is a difficult subject to weigh in the mathematical scale. It is hard to weigh up the advantage of having the right to open on Sunday if the shop is closed on Saturday. I can imagine many districts where the right to open up to 2 o'clock on Sunday would be far more valuable than opening on Saturdays. There is no universal rule; I think, however, that there is a universal opinion that it would create ill-feeling and possibly bring about bad feeling if the hour for Sunday opening were extended to 6 o'clock. In view of the position of the orthodox Jewish community and of the practically unanimous feeling in the House against the Amendment, I would ask the hon. Member not to press it to a Division.

I agree with a good deal of what has been said about this Amendment, but I disagree with one of my hon. Friends who said that it asks for privileges. I believe that when some of my hon. Friends voted on the last Amendment they thought they were giving the Jewish fraternity the right to open after sundown on Saturday. I am certain that some of them thought that. I did at first, and I found myself in the wrong Lobby, but I discovered my mistake and went into the other. I believed then that I voted for an Amendment which precluded Jewish shopkeepers opening after sunset on Saturdays. I take it that the House thinks that that was the fact. The present position is that the Jewish shopkeeper closes on Friday night, he closes all day Saturday and he is asked to limit his trading to 2 o'clock on Sunday. The only way to be just and to vote against privilege is to give the Jewish trader the right to open till 6 o'clock on Sunday. An hon. Member opposite said we might stir up a feeling that the Jews were being generously treated. In my opinion this Amendment should be carried in order that the Jews may be justly treated. Another argument was that it would interfere with the Christian Sunday, but there are two Sundays, there are two Sabbath days.

Only one in England

That is ridiculous, because this Bill provides for regulating trade by reason of the existence of more than one Sabbath. A drafting Amendment to the last Amendment was designed to cover people who believe that yet another day is the Sabbath. If we are concerned about religious sensibilities and about religious justice and fair consideration for all religious opinions we must remember that there are two Sabbath clays in the week. If we consider the sensibilities of the Christian who does not like to see his Sabbath desecrated, what about the position of the Jew who does not like to see his Sabbath desecrated? I am not a Jew, but I stand for justice for all religions. [Interruption.] It is not the case that I am taking up this attitude because of my constituents. In my constituency the Jewish vote is practically non est, and any suggestion that it affects my vote here to-day is absolutely wrong. I am concerned to get justice as between one section of traders and another section, justice as between the opinions of one set of religious people and the opinions of another section. If we feel concerned about privilege I say that in order to prevent privilege being legalised by this Bill we should vote for increasing the hours of trading to six o'clock. If the Amendment which has just been carried had meant that Jewish traders could open on Saturday evening then I should vote against the Amendment which is now before us; but the previous Amendment prevents the Jew from opening all day on Saturday, he is already prevented from opening on Friday night, and it is only justice to the Jew, both as a religious person and a trader, that this Amendment should be carried.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, after "authority," to insert, "in such form as may be prescribed."

A certain number of other Amendments to this Clause put down in the name of the Government are all related to this Amendment, and perhaps I may be allowed to address my arguments to the group of Amendments and not confine them merely to the Amendment which I am now moving. In Committee an Amendment was moved to provide that the Statutory declaration to be made by persons who desire to be allowed to open on Sundays instead of Saturdays should be prescribed by regulations made by the Home Secretary. The Home Office undertook to consider whether any further steps were necessary to tighten up the Clause. We have considered the matter and we think it is desirable that the Regulations should provide not only for the Statutory declaration but for any other declaration, undertaking or certificate which in practice may be found to be necessary in order to ensure that the conditions laid down in the Clause are all confined to genuine cases. At the same time we have taken power to prescribe also the notice to be given. A spokesman of a section of the opposition in the Standing Committee said they were prepared to co-operate with the Home Office in discussing the form which these Regulations should take, and we should like to take advantage of that offer, and no doubt, also, we should consult with the headquarters of the Seventh Day Adventists. After such consultation we should be prepared to make the Regulations. The Amendments which have been put down are merely to give effect to the undertakings which I gave in Committee, and I think they are reasonable.

I hope the House will not allow this Amendment to go through without some further statement from the Under-Secretary on what is involved. Here we have, for the first time in the history of our country, a religious test which is to be applied by a Home Office prescription. There is no provision for it to be put forward as a Statutory rule or Order. It will be done privately, after consultation with the Jewish Board of Deputies, whom I do not understand to be accepted by the Jewish community as their unquestioned representatives in a matter of this sort. It will be a Statutory declaration which for the first time, as far as I have been able to discover in my researches in the Library, is not prescribed either in the Bill itself or by Statutory Rules and Orders, but is left purely in the discretion of the Home Secretary, in communication not with all sections of the community but with that section of the community to whose commercial interest it is to have this particular Statutory exemption. L say "whose commercial interest," because I must refer to the case of the, Hairdressers Act, which, unfortunately, went through this House in 1930 and gives statutory exemption to Jewish hairdressers to open on Sundays if they close on Saturdays. Within 12 months of the passing of that Act the number of hairdressers who had conscientious objections rose from 20 or so to 140. So great is the competition, and so great the anxiety to make the most of the opportunities of a day for good business, that the number of shops opened increased seven or eightfold straight away.

That is what I anticipate will occur in this case. We shall have a Statutory declaration which will have very little conscience behind it but a great deal of commercial motive. I make no reflection on these people for having commercial motives; it is equally true of any other community in the world; but we have to take cognisance of if and recognise the facts. There is yet a further difficulty. Will the Under-Secretary give us an undertaking that no persons will be allowed to make a Statutory declaration if they are at present engaged in retail trade and have hitherto found themselves in a position to open on Saturdays? Will the exemption be restricted to those who can be certified by good evidence to have been orthodox at all material times? Or will it be open to people to become more orthodox as time goes on and they grow older? What about the orthodox Jews who come into the country and find themselves at once in demand for commercial purposes? Here you will have a group who can honestly say that they are orthodox and wish to sign the declaration, and they will thereupon become rather sought after in the community as directors who, under this Clause, can honestly say that. they are orthodox. They will, therefore, have the very considerable privileges which this Clause will give.

A statutory declaration has to be made before the local authorities. Is it desirable in places like Southend or Brighton to have every Jewish trader required to go before the local authority to make a statutory declaration, to file his undertaking, saying precisely how many directors are Jews or not Jews? It is an ill day for us when we have this sort of legislation brought before us in the form of a private Bill which has received a Second Reading before the world at large has understood what this Clause involves. There are other undertakings and certificates which are not mentioned in the Clause. What may those certificates be? Are they to be birth certificates, showing that the applicants' ancestry is such as is suggested by the assumption that they are orthodox? The statutory declaration is in a form that no one knows. We ought not to pass an Amendment which gives the Home Secretary, in communication with the Jewish Board of Deputies, complete discretion as to what he does, and so enables him to impose on local authorities, particularly at the seaside resorts where most money is flowing and Sunday opening is most necessary, the obligation of going right against their own instincts and their own customs, a procedure which may compel a place to have not one but 20 or 30 shops open from two o'clock on Sunday, contrary to the desire of the local community, contrary to the custom which for many years has been current in the neighbourhood.

I shall not deal with the question of ill will, but it will be exceedingly unpleasant for local authorities to have to indulge in these religious tests. In any case, before we pass this Amendment we ought to know what is the nature of this declaration. Has it been discussed? Is it known? Has the Home Secretary got a formula up his sleeve? I see the word "certificate" and the word "undertakings." We have heard nothing from the Under-Secretary as to the nature of these things. He says that his Amendments will stiffen up the Bill, but nothing that he has said has given me any reason to think that they will stiffen up the Bill. Has the matter been seriously considered? Have the Law Officers been consulted about this unprecedented document? A man has to swear that he is an orthodox Jew approved by the Board of Deputies. It is something new and very undesirable, and we want more enlightenment on the matter before we go further.

I cannot allow the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) to pass unchallenged: It is only right that the House should know that the body of which he spoke, the Board of Deputies, has received on previous occasions statutory recognition by this House for certain purposes and has been recognised as the authority which is competent to speak for the Jewish community in this country. So far from it having any commercial interest in seeing that these matters are put through in this way, I think it right to say categorically that the Board of Deputies desires above all things that the example of the Hairdressers Act should not be repeated in this Measure. It desires to see that the evasions which were practised under that Act are not repeated under this Measure. The board is interested only in the conscientious, orthodox Jews who desire, not to trade on their Sabbath but to trade instead on the Sunday, and to make it as difficult as possible for any other person who belongs to the Jewish community to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill for economic reasons. That is why certain Amendments were put on the Paper to tighten up the Clause. I resent what the hon. Member has just said about the Board of Deputies, and I hope that the rest of the House will not feel that there is any truth in his allegation.

I rose, however, to ask whether the Home Office have considered a particular matter arising from these Amendments. It seems to me that if these certificates and statutory declarations and other undertakings are given, they are given only to the effect that the person making them conscientiously objects on religious grounds to doing this, that and the other thing. That does not seem to me to be sufficient. I hope we shall get an assurance from the Home Office that between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place, if it should get there, the Home Office will consider whether something can be done to ensure that a person who makes the declaration, gives an undertaking and gets a certificate cannot thereafter evade it. I am not sure whether the penal provisions in Sub-section (4) cover an offence of that character. I hope that the Home Office, when they have the matter under consideration, will see that a person cannot give a declaration on one occasion and then evade it, without losing the protection of the exemption granted under this Clause.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, after "shop," to insert "or any of them."

The purpose of this Amendment also is to tighten up the Clause against any possibility of evasion by persons who may occupy a shop and trade somewhere else with another shop. That practice has occurred under the Hairdressers Act, but by inserting these words we make it abundantly clear that the practice cannot be repeated.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, after "Saturday," to insert:

"( ) no such occupier, director, or member shall work in any capacity on Saturday."

Again, the purpose of this Amendment is to tighten what was a loophole in the Hairdressers Act, by which persons were employers on one day and employed on another. It was felt that that opportunity should not be afforded under this Measure. Therefore the Jewish Board of Deputies, of which the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) spoke just now, have asked me to put forward this Amendment to prevent that evasion being repeated.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have complete sympathy with the motives behind the Amendment. Anything we can do to tighten the loopholes which occurred in the Hairdressers Act should be done, but I submit to my hon. Friend that the phrasing of the Amendment is too wide. If you took the phrasing quite strictly I doubt whether any individual would be allowed to go out on Saturday afternoon. I appeal to him, now that he has ventilated the point, to withdraw the Amendment. I am sure it will receive attenin another place.

The Amendment is quite good enough as it stands, and I hope that we shall not put further obligations upon another place, in spite of the appeal which has been made. Apart from that, may I explain to my hon. Friends and to the House, and by way of apology, that had the Jewish Board of Deputies been in communication with me in the past fortnight, as they were a fortnight ago, and had I had information from them that they were taking the action they were, the phrases that fell from my lips would have been differently worded. I still do not accept the view that the Jewish Board of Deputies can wisely undertake this responsibility in regard to a Measure of this sort. I am well aware that they have statutory recognition, and that great responsibility rests upon them. I wish to say nothing against either the probity or the wisdom of those who constitute the board; but I question whether the declaration which they have given would be adequate to cover the very difficult, and almost casuistical, issues that are bound to arise.

The present Amendment seems quite adequate, and we had far better agree to it and let it be amended elsewhere, if need be. The question of not being allowed to work on Saturday is not one of substance. This is a perfectly good and clear Amendment, and commonsense will tell us, and will tell anybody who reads the Measure, that work in a garden and work for a third party for wages are two different natters. What we wish to avoid is someone working for wages on the Sabbath Day. I support the Amendment, and I hope that it will be agreed to forthwith.

I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) that this is a matter of commonsense. As I am advised, the Amendment would prevent a person from working on Saturday to make up his own accounts. The hon. Member who moved it and I are not lawyers, but I understand from those who are qualified in that profession that the courts may decide the meaning of the phraseology in a quite different manner, and we have to be very careful what we put in. I do not think that we should put in an Amendment which might have to be construed in that way.

If we applied commonsense, the lawyers would be ruined.

I agree with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) in this matter that it would be advisable not to assent to the Amendment, and that the hon. Member might be asked to withdraw it.

In view of what has been said by the representative of the Home Office, I certainly beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I only desired to ventilate the point, and I hope that the Home Office between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place may see whether some words can be inserted to cover the matter which I have raised. I appreciate the reference made by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), and I unreservedly accept it.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, at the end, to insert:

"(7) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any shop in which butchers' meat is sold other than any shop in which Kosher meat is sold by a person licensed by the local Board of Shechita or, in the absence of any such board, by the local Jewish congregation for the sale of Kosher meat."

Under the Bill as it stands a person of the Jewish faith would be able to sell ordinary butcher's meat on a Sunday provided that he closed his shop on the Saturday. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the only premises which may be opened for the sale of butchers' meat on Sundays would be those where Kosher meat is sold by persons licensed by the local Board of Shechita. I do not believe it would be the wish of the House that a Jew, who might not necessarily be an orthodox Jew, should be able to open his premises for the sale of ordinary butchers' meat on a Sunday.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so for the reason that it seems to me that the only exemption will be in respect of meat that is sought to be bought by really earnest Jews.

We appreciate the object of this Amendment. It is an attempt to introduce into the Bill the provisions of the Retail Meat Dealers Bill, under which the Sunday opening of butchers' shops would be limited to the sale of Kosher meat, but the Amendment is so worded that its effect would be that, not only would the butchers' shops in question have to be licensed for the sale of Kosher meat, but it would be necessary for them also to comply with all the provisions of the Clause as to notices, declarations, and so on, and we feel that perhaps the hon. Member does not really desire that. In the circumstances, we are wondering whether he might be prepared to withdraw the Amendment now, with a view, in another place, to the insertion of a provision which would meet his real requirements without any additional inconvenience.

When two Bills dealing with the same subject are going through at the same time, the matter is a little difficult, but I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether, if the other Bill becomes law, he would give an undertaking so far as he can to use his influence to see that whatever is necessary will be done in the matter?

Yes, Sir. We are in sympathy with the Amendment, though I could not undertake to say exactly what would be the immediate effect of particular legislative provisions.

The whole object of the Amendment is to withdraw butcher's meat from the general scope of the Bill, and I am quite content to leave it to the Under-Secretary to see that we are properly safeguarded. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams)—in page 5, line 37, after "If," to insert:

"any responsible authority of any area, or in the case of London,"

if the hon. Member would substitute the word "local" for the word "responsible," I should be prepared to call the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, after "If," to insert:

"any local authority of any area, or in the case of London."

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for enabling me to make the alteration which you have kindly suggested, and which I very gladly accept. The object of the Amendment is to preserve the very exceptional market which takes place on a Sunday morning at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I do not know that there is any similar market outside London. It is certainly not an ordinary street market; it takes place on the Corporation Quay, and there are no shops near. It is one or two miles away from any dwelling-houses, and the time for which it is held is usually from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. It is an ancient institution, having been in operation for between 100 and 200 years. It is a rendezvous for thousands of citizens on a Sunday, and, after the preliminary market, there are always meetings of religious bodies and political and other meetings. I think it is true to say that the Members of Parliament for the city would probably endorse my statement that it is one of the most popular institutions of the Northern Metropolis. It is supported almost universally in the city. It has the support of the city council, the local Members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament for the district who know it, and, singularly, enough there are no protests that I know of from any of the shopkeepers. It is as much a part of the civic life of the city as the Town Hall, or the Cathedral, or any other institution. I should like to read a copy which has been sent to me of a letter addressed to the Home Office by the Town Clerk of Newcastle, setting forth the position from the point of view of the city council and the public generally. It is dated the 17th instant from the Town Clerk's Office, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and reads as follows:

"In reply to your letter of the 9th instant, the Sunday market to which Mr. David Adams, M.P., referred in his conversation with Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd is a market or fair which is held by custom every Sunday morning throughout the year. At the market there are sold every Sunday, or on some Sundays, fruit, confectionery, ice cream, table waters, razor blades, watches, boots, clothes, flowers, secondhand books, and other articles. About one-half of the traders would be exempt by virtue of the provisions contained in the First Schedule to the Bill, but the position would be extremely difficult if action had to be taken against the remainder of the trades people. The trading in the market is over before three o'clock in the afternoon. It is, I imagine, a 'customary' market in the sense in which that word is used in the Bill, though there is no statutory authority for it, and it is not officially recognised by my council.

The market is held upon the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Quay, to which there is at all times public access, but, except for the fact that the crowds attending it are also on the adjoining street, it cannot be said to be a street market within the strict sense of that term.

On several occasions the question, usually raised by Ministers of religion in the town, of suppressing this market has been considered by my Watch Committee, but they have never taken any effective steps to do so, for the reason that it is a feature in the life of a large section of the inhabitants of the city, and I think that my Watch Committee also had in mind that to suppress it would undoubtedly lead to civil commotion.

I note that you say in your letter that it would be extremely difficult to propose an exemption for such a market except on the strongest grounds. Might I suggest that it would be still more difficult to justify the granting of the special provisions contained in Clause 6 (1) of the Bill without extending those provisions to a market such as the one at Newcastle, merely because it happened to be outside the bounds of the City and County of London."

In a, letter from the Home Office to the town clerk it is admitted that this is an exceptional market, and not a street market in the ordinary sense of the word. That letter states:

"So far as we are aware, there is no other similar market in any provincial town."

It is for these reasons that we look to the House to preserve what is, after all, a very valuable and ancient institution in that ancient city. We are not asking for the initiation of some new market. It is a very ancient one. It could not continue unless it had the sanction of the City Council, which is able to close it if it thinks fit. I do not believe the addition of the Amendment will be taken advantage of in any other part of the country for I do not know, neither does the Home Office nor the Town Clerk of Newcastle, of any similar market in the United Kingdom. It would be very unfortunate if the Jewish community in London were to be accorded preferential treatment against North country Jews and non-Jews.

On a point of Order. Are we allowed to listen to the hon. Member or are we not? There is such a noise on the other side of the House that it is impossible to hear what he is saying.

I am obliged to the hon. Member. I take it that the prime object of the Bill is to protect the interests of shop assistants. There are no shop assistants involved in this matter, but only the usual small traders with their stalls and barrows. It might be termed a kind of quayside resort for thousands of citizens of the working class, who ought not to be deprived of the privileges they enjoy in this way, as would be the case if the Amendment were not inserted. The Parliamentary Secretary has said we ought not to be parties to any vexatious restrictions upon the public. Surely that would apply to this case. Here we have an opportunity of leaving an ancient institution which is desired by the entire community, against which I have never heard a shopkeeper complain and which is far removed from all shops. It is the rendezvous of many thousands of people, who find themselves benefited in a diversity of ways. Time did not allow an opportunity of testing the opinion of the City Council, but they would be unanimous in desiring the Amendment to be made—it was drafted in association with the Town Clerk—and desiring that this ancient market should be continued.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Member has made out a case for Newcastle-upon-Tyne but the promoters of the Bill had no idea of giving the liberty that is given in this Clause to street markets in certain areas of London. The one reason that induced him not to offer the most strenuous opposition to the Clause was the fear that, in the actual conditions of London, in certain markets where you get 50 per cent. Jews and 50 per cent. non-Jewish traders, without the Clause you would have had the Jews trading on Sunday and the non-Jews forbidden to trade, and that would have caused racial feeling and probably racial trouble. It was with much misgiving that we accepted the Clause for that reason alone. Now the hon. Member asks that it should be applied to the whole of Great Britain, for one reason only, that there is an old established market in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I feel that it is too wide a remedy for one isolated instance. I appeal to the House not to give this tremendously wide freedom simply because there may be a good case to be made out for Newcastle. If the fear of civil commotion were reasonably grounded, there would be every inducement for Parliament to consider it.

That was the opinion of the Town Clerk.

I appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Amendment but to realise that this one case of Newcastle, good as it may be, can be considered in another place and met in some simpler way than by this enormous exemption.

We discussed this problem of street markets on Sunday in Committee for a very long time and some Members were very eloquent on the subject. While I am opposed to the Clause as a whole, I do not see any argument at all against accepting the Amendment. I am continually protesting against provisions being made for London which are not applicable to other parts of the country. When the promoter of the Bill says this is opening the gates, he forgets one provision in it. If the Newcastle market had not existed prior to 1st January this year it could not be included in the provisions of the Clause. Consequently I think the hon. Member must in logic accept the Amendment. When we come to the question that the Clause stand part, we shall have something to say about the absurdity of mentioning Bethnal Green, Shoreditch and Stepney. Why not mention Saltburn, Bootle, Liverpool, Edmonton, Leicester, Southend, Westhoughton, Horwich and all the rest of them? While some of us will oppose the Clause, the Amendment is justifiable and ought to be accepted.

I support the Amendment for many reasons. The Sunday market at Newcastle has existed for many years and is, in fact, an established custom, and is looked upon as one of the features of Newcastle. There is far too much interference with the ancient customs and traditions of the people of this country at the present time. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) suggested that Newcastle was the only town or city in the country where similar markets took place. There are in many cities, towns and villages—I should say upwards of 100—poor markets on Sundays to which people come from all parts of the country, and in many cases it is the only day available for them to earn a few pence in order to keep them going. In Newcastle there are men who served in the Great War and lost limbs who invested their savings in games which take place on the quayside in Newcastle on Sunday. If the effect of the Bill is to do away with that market, I shall vote against it, and I hope that the hon. Member for Consett will press his Amendment to a Division.

I should not like it to be thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) expressed the opinion of all of us on these benches. I, for one, shall have to vote against the Amendment, for, presumably, if the Amendment were carried, it would practically render the Bill of no effect. It would open the floodgates to street markets all over the country, and for that reason I ask my hon. Friends to support my view.

Let us not be too selfish in regard to this matter. This is not a question of opening new markets all over the country, but of keeping up old and customary markets which have a legend at the back of them, and which are to be found mentioned in the history of England.

That is no reason why they should be excepted.

We are getting into a very difficult position. We are to part company with the Bill and send it to another place, there to be amended possibly out of all recognition as the result of a. series of conversations between the Home Office and the promoters of the Bill, and Members of another place will have to be persuaded to accept whatever Amendment it is desired to put forward. I do not think that the Amendment could possibly be accepted in the form in whcih it is drafted. I can give the case of the "show out" market which takes place on Epsom Downs on the Sunday before the Derby. For many years there was a great effort to remove the more objectionable parts of that market. When I was a boy going to Sunday School we used to have a special flower service in order to attract the children away from the "show-out" market, In recent years the market has grown up again, and it has a number of objectionable features. I do not see that the selling of tips on Sunday afternoon is referred to in either of the Schedules of the Bill, and I can imagine a number of difficulties that would arise. If it is desired to exempt any particular market from the operation of the Bill, it should be done in the form that is already in the Bill, either by naming the places or specifying the markets. I cannot accept the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) that this should be done because Newcastle is the Northern Metropolis. Nobody in my Division of South Shields believes that Newcastle is the Northern Metropolis. South Shields has a better claim to that distinction than Newcastle, at any rate. But it is presumably a seaside resort and has, therefore, previously been dealt with to-day.

I hope that if the promoters of the Bill desire to keep it at all, they will realise that some of us who voted for the Second Reading are finding it very difficult to accept it in its present form. It never seems to keep the same shape for two consecutive seconds. I hope that they will have the courage of their convictions, and will let us have a Bill which, when it leaves this House, means something that we can understand and something for which we can accept responsibility. All day long we seem to have been transferring all our difficulties to another place. I have been surprised at the way some of my own hon. Friends have accepted, for this afternoon only, apparently, a sort of feeling that another place is one which can safely be trusted with the British Sunday, although there are many other less important things upon which they would not accept its judgment.

Perhaps the House will allow me to refer to a matter which only arises incidentally, and that is, to the letter which was read out by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams). There is a slight misunderstanding for which I do not in the least blame the hon. Member. I think that he and the House will appreciate that he read out a letter which was a confidential communication of the nature which is always going on between the Home Office and town clerks. It was perhaps handed to him in a way that he did not appreciate that it was merely for his private information. I am not saying that in order not to accept his argument, but merely in order to protect the official.

The hon. Member does not mean the letter I read from the Town Clerk of Newcastle?

I did mean that, but I only mentioned the fact because it might be misunderstood locally, and I wish to protect the local official.

May I correct the position? The Town Clerk conferred with me on the subject, and the letter is the result of that conversation.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. There is a misunderstanding, and there is apparently nothing for me to protect.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to the Second Reading Debate and complained that things might be going on as the result of conversations between myself and the promoters of the Bill which he might not wish. I would remind him that on the Second Reading, speaking from this Box, I said that while everybody would probably approve of the general principles, the real difficulties of the Bill would be in Committee. I also gave an undertaking that the Home Office would try and co-operate in order to make it a workable Bill. This has been our only object. Those who have been on the Committee will appreciate the fact that I was correct in what I said with regard to the difficulties of the Bill. The House, now the Bill has come back for Report begins to appreciate this fact more in the way that Members who were on the Committee have appreciated it already.

Speaking specifically to this particular point, I appreciate the motive of the hon. Gentleman in desiring exemption for the market in question, but may I bring the House back to the general perspective in regard to this matter? This Clause was argued in order to deal with the particular circumstances found to exist in London. It is not believed that any similar circumstances exist in any other parts of the country. From our information at present it does not appear that the market in Newcastle is similar to the markets in London which have this exemption. The House, and the hon. Gentleman himself, will appreciate that there has not been a great deal of time between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the Report stage, and we have not received any representations from the City Council with regard to this matter. We shall certainly be prepared to consider those recommendations, if and when they come. Therefore, we feel at the Home Office, that the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman proposes is too wide in the circumstances. We would much prefer to consider this matter after representations have been made, if they are received, from the provincial councils. I think that is the more businesslike way. The difficulty arises more from the fact that successive phases of this Bill have come rather quickly. I do not know whether the hon. Member will accept my suggestion, but I would suggest that he withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that this matter will certainly be considered by us later if representations are made to us.

If the Under-Secretary does receive representations, is it his intention to make further specific exemptions, or will he consider something on the lines of a provision which would be more or less inclusive?

I cannot go beyond the undertaking that I have given, but I think. our instinct would be to act more by way of special exemption rather than by a general one.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to certain markets of an objectionable character. My understanding of the Bill is that it has nothing to do with the morals of markets but with considerations of fair play to shop assistants and the owners of shops, so that by concerted action it may be possible for these people to get more leisure. I may be wrong, but I feel that the suggestion of the Under-Secretary with regard to communications from local authorities may open up just that objection, that local authorities may want to close markets for reasons other than those embodied in the Bill. In many respects throughout the whole of this Debate on the Report stage the purpose of the Bill has been missed by many hon. Members, and we are becoming involved in a lot of unnecessary intricacies which will tend, perhaps, to make the Bill ineffective and valueless for its original purpose.

I am much obliged to the Under-Secretary, and, on the undertaking which he has given, I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, after "than," to insert "bakers', confectioners'."

The object of the Amendment is to make an attempt to contract out the baking industry from the Clause. The master bakers trading in the East End areas and in the areas specified in this Clause—Stepney, Bethnal Green and Shoreditch—put to me the case that so far as they were concerned they had no desire whatever that any privilege should be given to them. They preferred that the whole of the bakers' shops should be closed. They believed that they would be considerably better off from the business point of view by so doing. They felt that as long as everyone closed on Sunday there was no room for anyone to be dissatisfied. With regard to the general Clause relating to Sunday markets, the feeling is by no means so, strong as to the absolute necessity of these markets being kept open, as certain hon. Members might suggest. However, that is another matter.

The narrow point that I am putting to the House is that bakers' and confectioners' shops should be excluded from the operations of this Clause. If the House will pay attention to the views of those directly interested, the employers and the operatives, they will find that they do not want a limited number of bakers' shops to be open in connection with these markets up to two o'clock on Sunday afternoon, because it will mean the reintroduction of a seven-day baking week. If employers are to be able to open their shops in connection with these markets and supply anything they choose up to two o'clock, there is every inducement for them to compel their men to come in on Saturday night. That means every night in the week, and they are thus reduced to the status of serfs and slaves. Employers and operatives ask the House to accept the Amendment, which is in the interests of the trade, and exclude the baking trade from the operations of the Clause.

I beg to second the Amendment.

On behalf of the promoters I have to oppose the Amendment. On general grounds I am in sympathy with much that the hon. Member has said, and in Committee I said that I would much rather see all shops closed, but, as the Clause stands, we have given power to the local authority, that is the London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London, to deal with this matter and, therefore, having given them the right to decide what grades and classes of goods shall be sold in these restricted markets on Sunday mornings, it is undesirable to restrict their discretion at all. Having asked this authority to decide what grades and what goods shall be sold in these particular markets I think they should have a free hand. They will hear the views of traders in these markets and, therefore, should be free in any decisions they have to make.

I am a little astonished at the attitude of the hon. and gallant Member. He says that the London County Council will hear the views of certain trades, and will accept their decision. Here we have an hon. Member connected with the trade, speaking to Parliament, on behalf of the employers and the employed, which, after all, is supreme even over the London County Council. If any trade had made an application to the promoters of the Bill while it was in Committee I am sure that they would have inserted them in this Clause rather than allow the London County Council to deal with the case. I should be astonished if the London County Council really wants to deal with problems of this kind. I imagine that if we were members of the London County Council we would say that Parliament ought to do its own job, and this is Parliament's job. If the hon. Gentleman will pardon my making a suggestion, I think he ought to withdraw his opposition to the Amendment.

I appeal to the promoters to withdraw their opposition to the Amendment. After all, the hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke on behalf of both sides of the trade. Not only is the trade, masters and men, unanimous, but there is a further point on which I base my appeal. In order to have new bread ready on Sunday, it has to be baked on Saturday night, and if this Amendment is not carried there will inevitably be seven night bakings which, I think, everybody will agree is most undesirable.

In response to the appeal made from all sides of the House, I would feel inclined to withdraw our opposition, but I would ask the House to consider one or two points. Leaving aside the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who said that it is our job to specify to the London County Council what shops will be allowed to be open, I would point out one difficulty. Under Clause 5 Jewish confectioners are allowed to open their shops anywhere in Great Britain. If this Amendment were accepted, as I read it, it would prohibit an orthodox Jewish confectioner opening in certain market areas in London and anywhere else. [HON. MEMBERS: "The other way round."] No, surely if this Amendment is accepted it will prohibit the opening of any confectionery shops in these particular market areas in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Apart from exceptions."] Clause 5 admits exceptions, but Clause 6 deals with these areas and overrides Clause 5 in that respect.

Does the hon. Member argue that the opening of Jewish bakers' shops on Sunday is of more importance than preventing the whole of the baking trade from baking seven days a week?

My argument is that under the Bill as it now stands there are exceptions on religious grounds in any case. Moreover, the London County Council is given power to exempt any type of shop in certain areas. If this Amendment is carried, it will take away from the London County Council the power to allow confectioners' shops to open in those areas, and it seems to me that this Clause might override Clause 5 and prohibit orthodox Jews opening their shops.

I happen to be one of those Members who did not take part in the Committee dealing with this Bill and I must confess that I have listened to the discussion of this Amendment with growing concern. The Bill appears to come to the House on Report stage in a. comparatively unprepared state, and I hope that before we pass from the Amendment now before us we shall hear something from the Under-Secretary. I cannot help feeling that in this particular case, with a Bill of such importance, the Home Office cannot dissociate itself from a very full measure of responsibility.

This is a difficult point, and I think the House is beginning to appreciate to the full the difficulties with which the Standing Committee have been wrestling for so many mornings. May I recall the attention of the House to the matter of perspective? In applying this general principle of Sunday trading restriction, we were faced with the exceptional difficulties and the involved circumstances of certain parts of London where there is both a high concentration of Jewish traders—as well of course as Christian traders—and a number of street markets. It was in order to solve the difficulties applying to those areas, difficulties which are very considerable, that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) brought forward a new Clause in Committee which is now Clause 6.

The general method of trying to deal with this exceptional problem in London was to give general powers to the London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London to grant certain exemptions to Jew and Christian alike. That was done in order to avoid arousing any feeling among Christian traders because of the fact that Jewish traders, of whom there was a high proportion in the area, were being allowed to open while they were not allowed to open. The Clause, as it stands, provides that in respect of those districts the local authority may make an order permitting the Sunday opening of all shops irrespective of the religion of the occupiers. If, however, a certain class of shops is to be excluded from the operation of the Clause it seems to us that the whole object of the provision will be defeated. I would point out to the Mover and supporters of the Amendment that, so far from benefiting the class of shops with which they are concerned, they may be subjecting non-Jewish occupiers of shops precisely to those conditions which they desire to avoid. The desire of the Home Office is to avoid having anything in this Bill which would arouse any bitter feeling in any districts in London. It was for that reason that we supported the new Clause as moved by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green in Committee, and it is for that reason, and because we think the Amendment would derogate from and spoil the effect of the Clause in regard to these shops, that we advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) is in charge of the Bill but references are often made to the promoters of the Bill. I had some personal connection with the drafting of the Measure and it seems to me that, in regard to certain vital Amendments of this kind, a section of the promoters have never been consulted at all. At any rate, I have not had the advantage of any consultation on this Amendment.

May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that had I known he was really interested in the promotion of the Bill I, obviously, would have consulted him.

I am sure the hon. Member would, but I am referring to the promoters of the Bill as such. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment speaks from a dual angle. He is a most experienced official of the workers' organisation connected with the baking trade of this country. At the same time, I know from conversations that went on with regard to the original drafting of the Measure that he has the confidence of the employers who are also interested in this matter. He therefore speaks with very great authority on the matter. When we come to deal with the Amendment adopted in Committee dealing with the general problem, to which the Under-Secretary of State has quite rightly drawn attention, the Committee apparently lost sight of this fact that of all the particular matters which have driven people under this kind of trading restriction to take action, one of the most modern and most urgent has been baking.

Anyone who knows the position of the operatives' side of the baking industry knows that in the last five or six years particularly there has been such a growth in London of Saturday night and Sunday morning baking as to undermine and injure the whole basis of the trade union platforms, which have been arranged on a wide basis with god employers in the baking industry, and that in consequence the whole position of the trade is being placed in jeopardy. Therefore, as both sides of the industry are completely united behind this request, and as some of us consider it to be vital, if the Bill is finally to be put upon the Statute Book, I renew the suggestion which was made by my hon. Friend that this Amendment should be accepted. We regard it as vital to the Bill, and whatever may be said about the question of feeling in London, let me say that if this is not provided for in the Bill, you are immediately going to throw into the cockpit of every borough and every county council just this kind of discussion within the baking trade as will give rise to all the local feeling which you say you are anxious to avoid. Therefore, in view of that little bit of history, I hope the promoters will agree to our request; if not, I hope my hon. Friends will go to a division on the question.

This matter certainly is one which concerns the bakers of the country generally rather than those of London only, but on this Amendment, as on most other parts of this obviously important Measure, there is a great clash of genuine public interest. I ask the House, on balance of considerations, to reject this particular Amendment for the reasons which were put very clearly by the hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office. I submit that it is the clear construction of this Bill as it stands that Clause 5 overrules this sort of provision in Clause 6, and if you put bakers' and confectioners' shops into this part of Clause 6, it will mean that in the districts in London where there is bound to be feeling between Jews and Christians, and where certain elements in this country are engaged in stirring up feeling between Jews and Christians, the Jew confectioner will remain open on Sunday while the

As a point of explanation, may I say that I am fully aware of the point which the last speaker has put forward and that I am prepared to accept that risk? It has been well considered by both sides of the industry, and we are prepared to take whatever risks there may be involved.

I have been connected with the Masters' Association in this industry for the same number of years that the last speaker has been connected with the Operative's Association, and I know that they have fully considered this point. The Home Office are not the last word in considering points of legislation, or else a good many lawyers would be out of a job at the present time. Both masters and men have considered the particular points that have been raised here. I would ask the House to consider that the operative bakers have to work six nights a week, and that the only night they have at home with their friends and relations is Saturday night. If the Amendment is not accepted, it will result in their working seven nights. I ask the Home Office to accept the Amendment because both masters and men in the trade are unanimous on the subject, and surely they are the people to be considered.

On a point of Order. I should like to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. Several hon. and right hon. Members were prevented from taking part in the Division through being informed, when they came here in answer to the Division bell, that the Division was "off." Several hon. Members who wanted to vote have been unable to do so. I, myself, wished to vote in support of the Amendment.