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

Section 14 of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, reads as follows:

"Where a scheme is made by the Charity Commissioners after the passing of this Act in relation to any charity, and part of the endowment of such charity consists of land other than buildings and the appurtenances of buildings, the Charity Commissioners shall insert in such scheme a provision authorising the trustees of the Charity to set apart portions of the said lands for allotments and the same may be set apart and let as allotments in like manner as is directed by this Act."

Since that Act was passed in 1882 the whole system of allotments has been altered. It is a mere survival of a far distant past, when land for allotments was very hard to get. It is an embarrassment to any trustee to be compelled to put in a provision of this sort. Although it is optional to have to provide it, it is bound in these days, when county councils and borough councils have quite independent powers to acquire and provide land for allotments, to cause a certain amount of legal difficulties and correspondence, and sometimes heart-burning and heart-searching. I suggest to the promoters of the Bill that they would be well advised to give the trustees of hospitals the little extra freedom that this new Clause would give them, by not requiring the Charity Commissioners to put into all their documents so far as they concern hospitals a provision which has long ceased to have any real value.

I beg to second the Motion.

I hope the House will not agree to accept the proposed new Clause, because it is unnecessary and inappropriate. The scheme of the Bill is that the Charity Commissioners may make orders authorising the committee of management of a hospital to provide or maintain on land belonging to the hospital new buildings, or existing buildings, or parts of buildings, for the accommodation and treatment of paying patients. This will be done by an Order of the Commissioners, which is expressly provided for in the Bill, and I am advised that it will not be a scheme which will come under Section 14 of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882. Therefore, I submit that the Clause is unnecessary and inappropriate, and I hope the House will not agree to it.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

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

The position, as I read the Bill—and I have been at some pains to study it—is that until a definite scheme can be passed and approved by the Charity Commissioners, they have not provisional powers to sanction schemes that may be put before them. In one or two cases that have come within my personal knowledge, the Charity Commissioners have been frequently unable forthwith to agree to a scheme. It has taken years sometimes to get a final settlement, but they could very well under these powers make a Provisional Order under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853, which would give the committee of management all the powers they seek to carry on with building, to make extensions and to take any action they think fit, subject to final settlement in due course. The Charity Commissioners, I understand, frequently take advantage of the powers they possess under Section 54 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853.

Although I have not had an opportunity of discussing this new Clause with the promoters of the Bill I cannot but think that it would assist the hospitals if they took a scheme before the Charity Commissioners for a Provisional Order, instead of having to have the whole scheme finally settled before they go to the Commissioners. Building contracts may have to be passed and plans considered in conjunction with municipal authorities or highway authorities, and they would be in a stronger position if they had these provisional powers at their disposal in addition to those given by the Bill. The Charity Commissioners are not a numerous body, and in many ways are grossly overworked. There is only one Charity Commissioner who can travel about the country to make personal inquiries into schemes, and unless there is some provisional scheme provided it may mean unnecessary delay. In dealing with hospitals and hospital buildings, time is the essence of the problem.

I beg to second the Motion.

When I looked at this new Clause I was not quite certain what the hon. and gallant Member had in mind, but, as I understand it, he desires that the power to sanction provisional schemes conferred by Section 59 of the Act of 1853 should be conferred on the Charity Commissioners by this Bill. I think the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The power given by Section 59 of the Act of 1853 was in order to prevent the delay involved between the time when the Charity Commissioners had made up their minds and the period of a Bill passing through this House. This Bill itself is designed to prevent such delay. It prevents the necessity of hospitals hav- ing to come to this House for a Bill at all. As soon as the Commissioners have made up their minds, they can issue an order. I suggest that this is not a point of substance, and that it is quite inappropriate to put into this Bill Sections of a previous Act which were designed to avoid the delay which the Bill itself prevents.

In view of the explanation of the Attorney-General I should not venture to press the new Clause on the House, but I confess that had the Bill been in the form in which it was originally presented in another place, and not in its present form, I should have greater confidence in the validity of the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Clause 4 says:

"The Charity Commissioners shall not make an Order authorising any use or application of property or funds which, apart from the Order, would involve a breach of any trusts upon which the property or funds are held or a contravention of any prohibition or restriction imposed as mentioned in section two of this Act."

They are far more closely tied by the Clause in its present form than as it was originally drafted, and I think that owing to the strict limitations placed on the Charity Commissioners there will in future have to be applications to Parliament. It May be that a new Clause such as I have suggested will be very useful. I hope the Attorney-General will further consider this point and, what action can be taken. In the meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "may" insert, "with the consent of the Ministry of Health."

This Amendment raises a very important point which has not been considered either on the Second Reading of the Bill or in Standing Committee. The Bill was read a Second time without any hon. Member rising to debate it, and in Standing Committee it was passed without a Division after a few minutes conversation. So brief were the proceedings in Standing Committee that they have not been printed; they are only available in manuscript form. The Bill deals with voluntary hospitals and paying patients. There is a steady growth throughout England and Wales of paying patients' wards. There is a growing tendency in nearly all hospitals to admit paying patients consequent on the growth of municipal hospitals which are taking more and more of those who cannot afford to pay anything. The pressure upon hospitals to make both ends meet by taking in paying patients is increasing, and the Bill is an attempt to make it easier for them to do so in competition with State hospitals. But there is no reference anywhere in the Bill to the Ministry of Health. The Charity Commissioners alone are responsible.

Sixty years ago, when the nation was concerned with the proper distribution of educational trusts, they did not give the Charity Commissioners the duty of deciding how these trusts should be modified, they created a body called the Endowed School Commissioners, who went into every educational trust in England and made their report. The Charity Commissioners were to be no longer responsible for educational trusts; they were transferred to the Board of Education. It seems to me that the Ministry of Health should exercise a certain supervision and responsibility over the modification of trusts when they relate to the activities and scope of voluntary hospitals, and that they should have a voice in deciding whether a particular proposal is in. order or not. The Clause says:

"The committee of management may provide and maintain on such land from time to time belonging to them such new buildings or such existing buildings of the hospital or such parts of such new or existing buildings and such and so many beds therein and for such period as the Charity Commissioners may on the application 'of the committee of management—."

Surely it is reasonable to ask that the Ministry of Health should come into these discussions. A transference of labour is going on in this country. Hospitals in Hertfordshire have three times as many patients as they had 10 years ago, owing to the great increase of industrial activities, and of motoring and other destructive activities. Industrial accidents are steadily increasing. A great proportion of them are now paying patients and very properly so, for there are employers' funds, workmen's compensation funds and other sources from which payments may be made to maintain the patient in hospital for the period of his treatment. How far an alteration is necessary and desirable in any one case should not be left to the Charity Commissioners. There are in the country for which I have the honour to be one of the five Members, eight different hospitals, each of them having somewhat different functions and each of them having its own independent arrangements, with no co-ordinating authority whatever.

I suggest that the time has come for the Ministry of Health to decide, after full consideration, whether paying patients of a particular type should be concentrated in a particular hospital, or whether there should be a redistribution of responsibilities. A Home Office Committee is at this moment sitting to deal with the treatment of people who receive injuries in industry. It would be out of order to discuss the activities of that Committee here, but it is quite clear that most of them would be the better for being treated in a particular hospital and not in any given general hospital. For those reasons—I will not detain the House by explaining further the importance of the Ministry of Health taking some responsibility under this Bill--I hope the House will favourably consider the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment. This Bill has as its purpose the simplifying of the procedure by which hospitals with limited trusts can expand their usefulness to the community. I do not think there is any doubt whatever of the need for their doing so. If we accept this Amendment, not only will the hospitals have to go to the Charity Commissioners, but they will have to obtain the consent of the Ministry of Health, and I suggest to the House that that would only cause delay and confusion. l agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) that the time is coming when there should be a co-ordinated hospital policy for the country, but I suggest that a Bill such as this to extend the powers of hospitals with limited trusts is not the time and occasion to start setting about that co-ordinated policy. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

I notice that on this Bill neither of the representatives of the Ministry of Health has deigned to attend to give the House guidance. We have the ever-indefatigible Attorney-General, who I will not say is a poor substitute—for that would be a reflection on him—but the wrong substitute. This is not merely a legal matter, although of course there is the legal point of the relation of the charitable trusts to this particular reform. In my view the reform is in every way desirable, but I do not quite take the line that these changes have no relation to the co-ordination of hospital services.

We are very proud of our voluntary hospitals, which are a peculiar institution associated with this country. The Local Government Act made a great change in the whole hospital system, for it brought the old Poor Law institutions, as they used to be called, under the public health system. The hospital system is patchy, and, especially in and around London, there are very serious gaps. The voluntary hospitals are undoubtedly going through a very lean time, and I think that part of the object of this Bill is to fill the empty coffers of those hospitals. I have no objection to that, but if it will mean a shortage of free beds in certain areas, that will be a. very serious matter for many districts, especially newly-developed districts such as the district which my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment represents. All around London, in Middlesex, Kent, Essex and Surrey, new urban areas are growing up almost like mushrooms. The provision for voluntary hospitals is by no means complete, and there is at the same time a shortage of beds provided by public institutions.

The matter is not merely one for the Charity Commissioners to decide. It is a question of the organisation of health services throughout the country, and therefore I suggest that the Ministry of Health or the local authorities, which are the responsible authorities for providing the beds, should be brought in in some way or another. Whether the Charity Commissioners should have to consult the local authorities before com- ing to a decision or consult the Ministry of Health, I do not think is important. We ought to be sure that in making a reform which is desirable we do not risk a serious shortage in some areas of free beds for sick people when they need them.

Is the hon. Baronet not aware that under this Bill there is a general safeguard that the available facilities for ordinary patients shall not be diminished? That seems to answer his point.

I had the privilege of being a member of the Committee upstairs which dealt with this Bill, and I wish hon. Members who have spoken here had been in that Committee, for they would then have heard that we tried to put another point dealing with almost to the same problem they have raised today. We were forced to the very simple conclusion that if the Amendment which is now before us were carried, the Ministry of Health would have power over about six voluntary hospitals only. If we are to carry out this big suggestion, with which I agree in principle, I hardly think we should do it on this Bill and on this Bill alone. I think it will be agreed that it should be done on a bigger scale and ought to deal with the hospital problem as a whole.

May I point out that there are other Bills with which we have to deal to-day, and I hope the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for his Amendments will not lead him to prolong the discussion and prevent us from reaching the two other Bills. Were it not for my desire to reach the last of the three Bills, I would, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Health is not represented here, have moved the Adjournment of the House; but to do that at the moment would be to cut off my nose to spite my face.

To return to the Bill, may I say that hon. Members on these Benches are a little apprehensive about one thing which we debated upstairs, and I think it ought to be put on record to-day. Very briefly the position is this: Although the Bill only covers six hospitals, there is nothing in it to prevent those hospitals charging heavy fees to paying patients. We think that the Charity Commissioners ought to have the right to vary an Order under Clause 2, not only at the instance of the hospital committee, but on their own initiative. We have a feeling that in passing Clause 2 we shall extend the accommodation in these hospitals for part-paying patients, and that is all to the good, but our fear is that while we are doing that, we may at the same time limit the accommodation for those patients who cannot afford to pay anything at all. These are the things which influenced our minds in Committee. This is a private Member's Bill and the House of Commons is always rather generous in its treatment of private Members who want to secure small reforms. We have supported this Bill throughout, not because we did not think we could amend it—and indeed we sometimes think still that we ought to have pushed our Amendment to a Division in Committee—but because of the main principle involved. In the main the Bill will release those trusts which now bind these five or six hospitals, and that is a very desirable reform, and it is because of that principle of the Bill that we have not pressed certain Amendments.

As reference has been made to the actions of my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, I would like to say that yesterday I considered this Bill and the Amendments which were then on the Order Paper. At that time, yesterday afternoon, the only Amendments on the Paper were two new Clauses, and the only point raised by the two new Clauses were legal points of construction. Therefore, so far as it was necessary for a Member of the Government to be present on this occasion to deal with the Amendments then on the Order Paper, it seemed that I was the proper person. The other Amendments which now appear on the Order Paper were put down some time last night. I think it is right that those facts should be stated. If Amendments affecting a Government Department are not put down until the evening before the Bill is coming on in the House, it is very difficult for those responsible for the Department to be in attendance.

It is true that I did not put down these Amendments until last night, but that was through no desire for obstruction and no feeling of contumacy, but simple; because the report of the proceedings in Committee had not reached me in printed form. Only after some trouble was I able to unearth it from the archives of the Library in manuscript. Upon reading it, I found that this point had been raised in Committee, but, I felt, inadequately, and as the report was not printed, it was not available to the public. The Bill was scarcely mentioned on Second Reading, and I felt that the Floor of the House was the proper place for these important points to be ventilated and discussed in order that the public and the appropriate Ministers might be aware of the very general feeling that all is not well with the voluntary hospital system and that they must sooner or later take their responsibility. There is a further Amendment dealing with consultation with county and borough councils, but as far as the Amendment about the Ministry of Health is concerned, and the consequential Amendments to it, I propose to withdraw them, with the permission of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after "to," to insert:

"the county or borough council in whose area the hospital is situated and"

This Amendment raises the point which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and its object is to give the local authorities some say in the matter before the Charity Commissioners exercise their statutory duty in sanctioning a Scheme, or an alteration in the proportion of beds, or the provision of additional beds for paying patients. The arguments in favour of it are precisely the same as those already set forth in relation to the Ministry of Health, but they are in some respects more cogent in this case. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is under a misapprehension when he thinks that only half-a-dozen hospitals will be involved. I anticipate that within a few:y ears we shall have perhaps three or four score hospitals who will come within the scope of the Clause. I hope we may; I hope to see great activity under this Clause. I think the Bill will have a far wider effect than the promoters themselves realise.

I submit that, in the interest of the hospitals and the Charity Commissioners, there should be some consultation with the county and borough councils. To go back to the question of educational trusts, which are more or less parallel, I would remind the House that in 1860 the Educational Trusts Commissioners and the Endowed School Commissioners were required by law to consult with the local authorities before reaching a final decision, and when these consultations were completed, the final reference was to the Charity Commissioners, whose powers were thereupon taken over by the Board of Education. It may be that the promoter will say that this Amendment would involve delay and difficulty, but I believe that consultation with the local authorities is always worth while, and that he would be well advised to accept this small Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have already stated my reasons. This is really the right way to achieve our purpose, and it particularly applies to new areas where the local authorities have not yet been able properly to organise the means of making up deficiencies in accommodation by beds provided in a local authority's hospital, and where perhaps also, owing to insufficient local consciousness, it is not possible to raise funds to provide free beds for the ordinary patients. I do not think the Amendment will lead to needless delay. As a rule local authorities have the same pride and affection for the local voluntary hospitals as have the Governors and subscribers. I notice that my hon. Friend opposite shakes his head, but I think the sooner that friendly relationship is established, the better for all concerned. Here is a friendly gesture and the right kind of gesture, and I think that my hon. Friend would be well advised to accept the Amendment.

I am sorry that he has not the guidance of the appropriate Ministers, who are conspicuous by their absence, and it seems a sad thing that almost the whole burden of the House of Commons should be placed on the shoulders of the Attorney-General. The Solicitor-General, unfortunately, has been ill for some weeks, and I am very sorry for that. It is not fair, or right, or proper that the Government should put so much responsibility on the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. However, he is a man of wide knowledge and broad sympathies, and I hope that this time he will give us some guidance on this point.

I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment on behalf of the promoters. I do not need to restate the arguments, but I think the Amendment is quite unnecessary. This Clause applies only to where there has been some material change of circumstances and the Charity Commissioners can step in and, on their own initiative, revoke or vary an Order. It is only right on such occasions that they should give the committee of management of the hospital the right to state their case. I think this Amendment is unnecessary, because, if hon. Members will look at the wording of the Clause, they will see that the Commissioners can also give this right "to any other persons appearing to the Commissioners to be concerned," and if the local authority were concerned, the Commissioners would have power under the Clause to hear them.

I am very glad to support the Amendment, which I think is in harmony with to-day's practice. Under the Local Government Act of 1929, it is obligatory upon local authorities and voluntary hospitals to confer when any changes are being effected with regard to the hospitals of one or the other. I happen to be chairman of a large health committee, and ever since the 1929 Act came into operation we have conferred with the voluntary hospitals of one sort and another.. For instance, when. the Newcastle Corporation desired to extend its hospital and to build a new block for children, we were compelled under the 1929 Act to confer with the Royal Victoria Infirmary, with the Babies Hospital, and with the Fleming Memorial Hospital, and if you are not to have overlapping, discontent, and uncertainty, which ought at all times to be avoided, in. short, if you are to have good will, there ought con- tinuously to be this conferring, or even standing committees set up upon which local authorities and voluntary hospitals would serve.

If that were not a good thing, why was this obligation placed on local authorities in the 1929 Local Government Act. So far as we are concerned, it has been exceedingly successful, and the best of good will prevails. There has been interchanges between one and the other of the hospitals, both voluntary and municipal, and by such co-operation the municipal hospitals are being brought up, where they are lower in status, to that of the best voluntary hospitals, and the voluntary hospitals, on the other hand, are being brought up to the higher standards of the municipal hospitals by association in this way. I think that to eliminate the local authority as is proposed, or at all events to weaken its authority under the 1929 Act, as would be the case if this Amendment were not assented to, would be a distinctly reactionary step.

I wish, first of all, to thank the hon. baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) for his very kind references to myself. I am glad to say that I am bearing up, and I hope I do not show undue signs of wear and tear. This Amendment is, of course, a matter for the House itself. Everybody agrees with the desirability of co-operation and so on between local authorities and voluntary hospitals. On the other hand, I will put this point before those who are asking for this Amendment. They are asking for it at a very late stage. This Bill, like most private Bills, has very properly been the result of a great deal of discussion and negotiation with the various people, hospitals, and so on affected, and over a considerable period of time. I think every Member of the House is very grateful to my hon. friend and those who have worked with him in endeavouring to arrive at a common agreement and, finally, in getting a Measure which has commended itself to those concerned. It has been discussed in another place, it has had a Second Reading here, and it has had a Committee stage upstairs. It is not that I am saying that anybody might object to this Amendment. It is, as I have said, entirely a matter for the House. This Amendment is put forward as one of importance, and it may be that those who have put it forward and those who think it right will agree, now that the promoters have said that they would rather it was not accepted, particularly perhaps at this late stage of the Bill, when there is no further opportunity for discussions to go on, that it might not be wise to press the Amendment.

I am interested in this Amendment, because I am informed that this Sub-section (4) will give the power to hospitals to readjust or amend their present powers so that people who at present are not forced to pay may have to pay if the Clause is carried without any local authority being enabled to make representations. I am informed that this matter affects not only London but the entire country, and I want to put a point of view from somewhere a little bit farther off than London. At my own pit, or rather the pit where I used to work, not my pit, we have contributed voluntarily during the last 10 years £70,000 to voluntary hospitals, which is al the rate of £7,000 a year, and what I am desirous of knowing is this: Supposing we have a man at that pit who has never been inside a voluntary hospital in his life and who may have been contributing for 30 years, and he meets with a serious accident. He has saved at bit of money, he may have a house, or he may have something in a co-operative society. Under this Clause, if he has a bit of a banking account., although he has been contributing for 30 years, week by week, the hospital committee can call upon him -to pay, and I am very desirous that that should not be the case.

I am desirous that, the local authority, of which I am a member, shall be enabled to make representations and to put their point of view before the hospital committee if that committee should desire to change its powers arid extend them, and the main point of view of the man who contributes week by week whether he has a full week's work or not. Many local authorities give contributions out of the rates, and those authorities who feel that they are too poverty-stricken to give a grant are looked upon by other authorities almost as blacklegs. I am desirous that those authorities shall be enabled to put their case before the Charity Commissioners so that protection should be given to our members who are continually paying to voluntary hospitals, who would not be able to keep open one day unless the workers were contributing towards their expenses

I think that I can give the hon. Member the assurance that he wants. There is nothing in the Bill which will affect the interests of working-men who subscribe their penny and twopence a week to voluntary hospitals. If there were, I should not be giving my support to it, for I have had too much to do with voluntary hospitals which raise a large part of their income from these small subscriptions. The Bill safeguards the right of these men absolutely. There is a general provision in the Bill that existing facilities shall not be affected, and that provides a complete safeguard. With regard to the Amendment, I ask the Committee to let us get on with the Bill. The promoters appreciate the need of consultation between local authorities and voluntary hospitals, but this Bill is not the place to bring that out. Under this Clause the Charity Commissioners have the power to ask any person who is interested to appear before them.

I want to protest against the novel defence set up by the Attorney-General. He said that this Amendment had been put down very late and that because of its lateness it might upset certain things, and asked us, therefore, not

It is surely a proper course for the- Government to say on an Amendment that the people putting it forward are capable of explaining it, and that it is for the House to decide. The Government do not take one side or the other, but leave it in the hands of the House. There was nothing more than that in my remarks. My hon. Friend is free to say that he does not attach any importance to the fact that this point has been raised at a late stage, but I put that forward as a matter that the mover of the Amendment should consider.

The promoter of the Bill has made it clear that the consultation with local authorities, which is generally desired, is possible and would be arranged if necessary by the Charity Commissioners under the last two lines of the Clause. That being the case, I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I beg the House to realise that this Debate has served a useful purpose because it has made clear to the Charity Commissioners that there should be consultation in all cases with local authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

No.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 75.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert:

"and shall be notified in the London Gazette and in such local papers as the Charity Commissioners may direct."

The principle underlying this Amendment was discussed not long ago on the Ribbon Development Act, and I think from what was said then that there is a strong case for giving the public at large information as to what is being done by hospitals and by the Charity Commissioners in this matter. I cannot conceive that there is a word that could be reasonably said against the proposal to require the Charity Commissioners and the hospital to make such public notification of their intention as would enable local authorities and private persons to prepare their case and to be heard in the event of any such scheme being the subject of an inquiry by the Charity Commissioners.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Far be it from me as a newspaper proprietor to do anything to discourage advertisements, but one of the few things I do not like is to have to charge advertisements to hospitals. I think this proposal would put an unnecessary expense upon hospitals, and I would ask the Mover of the Amendment not to press it.

The Bill to which I now ask the House to give a Third Reading passed its Second Reading not at a late hour, as the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said, but at a very early hour, after an all-night sitting, and without discussion. It may, therefore, be for the convenience of the House if, very briefly, I explain what are its aims. The Bill is promoted by King Edward's Hospital Fund and by the British Hospitals' Association to enable hospitals with trust deeds settled long ago to meet the modern demand for pay beds, in which those who can afford to pay a moderate charge may receive the benefit of those modern methods of diagnosis and treatment which cannot be undertaken without the specialised equipment and staff of a general hospital, or can only be undertaken elsewhere at very great expense, if at all. Voluntary hospitals with modern trust deeds can and should provide for all who need hospital treatment, whatever their capacity to pay. As in the past, their first duty should be to treat free of cost the sick poor, but after that they should provide for those classes who cannot afford the greater charges which are made elsewhere and who, bat for the provision of pay beds, would hive to be treated in the ordinary wards. They should also provide for those other classes who can afford to pay charges proportionate to their means and who cannot obtain the treatment they need anywhere except in a modern general hospital.

But there are many hospitals with ancient trust deeds which cannot legally make such provision, even with money specially collected and given for the purpose, and on occasions when they have to give treatment which cannot be provided elsewhere they cannot legally charge for that treatment, even though the recipient may be able and willing to pay. Such a state of affairs is not fair to the hospital and is not fair to the people of the district which is served by it. This Bill, therefore, gives to the Charity Commissioners the power to remove such anomalies by allowing hospitals to provide pay beds if this is not done to the detriment of their first and primary duty, the treatment of the sick poor. No hon. Member need have any fear that in voting for this Bill he will endanger the treatment of the sick poor, for not only does the Bill provide full and adequate powers for the Charity Commissioners, but special safeguards have been inserted in it in another place at the instance of His Majesty's Government, to secure that there shall be no diversion to other purposes of property and funds acquired under the original trusts.

The Bill gives to the Charity Commissioners power to permit a hospital to provide a suitable proportion of pay beds for a specified period out of moneys specially collected for the purpose, and it does not permit the use of existing funds, land or buildings unless they cannot he used for the original purpose. In addition, the Charity Commissioners are given power to promote or vary an order if there has been a material change in the circumstances under which the order was granted; and there is a general safeguard that the existing available facilities for ordinary patients shall not be diminished. The Charity Commissioners may also require the committee of management of a hospital, in order to meet the needs of those who can afford to pay part if not the whole of the cost, to set aside a certain number of beds for their treatment, and the hospital is enabled to charge any deficit on that treatment to the general funds. In the order the Charity Commissioners can also lay down the scale of charges that the committee of management may make for maintenance and treatment by the resident staff of the hospital.

These are the main provisions of the Bill. The safeguards for the interests of the poor are, in my opinion, fully adequate, and I trust that the House will give the hospitals this additional power to enable them to extend their beneficent work. We all want to see an efficient hospital system available to all in this country, and most of us think that the voluntary hospitals can play their part in providing it. It is only by removing anomalies such as this Bill sets out to remove that we can enable the hospitals to play their full part. The treatment of the sick poor must always be their first care, and after that the treatment of those working men who, by their pennies and twopences and threepences per week, play such a. big part in providing the income of the voluntary hospitals, and who when they subscribe these sums pay very largely for their own treatment and that of their families. But after we have provided for those two classes we should also provide for those who can afford to pay in proportion to their means, so that every one in this country shall have the benefit of all the modern equipment, the specialised skill and training of the staffs of general hospitals. It is because I feel that this Bill will further extend this kind of work that I ask the House to give it a Third Reading.

I beg to second the Motion.

It is perhaps fitting that I should say -a word or two because I went through the Committee stage of this Bill. It is a private Member's Bill and every Member is entitled to think and vote as he likes. In the main some of us support this Bill because it releases for a certain purpose funds that are tied up by trusts. I think we shall have to reach a stage when all hospitals for the treatment of the sick must be free. I think, however, that there are some rich persons who, though they can afford to pay for hospital treatment, sometimes do not pay a penny piece. On the other hand there are cases where the sick poor are charged fees when they ought not to be charged at all. Consequently some day the hospital problem as a whole will have to come under the review of Parliament. This Bill will remove an anomaly. It deals with a very small problem and because of that I have taken the liberty of supporting it all along the line.

I wish to protest against the sparseness of the information given to the House by the Government Front Bench. When questions have been asked in the past we have been told that it is too early to give the information. To-day we have been told that it is too late to give it. I imagine that between the "too early" and "too late" the reason is that the Government have nothing whatever to say.

I do not want to raise unnecessary controversy. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates the fact that our primary concern with this Bill is that it deals with charities. I am certainly not conscious of having been asked for any information which I have not given the House. If any hon. Member has asked me for information which I have not given him, I apologise to him.

It must be many years since any hon. Member has presented twin Bills to the House on a single Friday, with every prospect of seeing them both passed the same afternoon, and I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in congratulating the promoter on two exceedingly healthy twins. But there is one serious defect which I will mention. I regret that I could not mention it on the Report stage. Clause 5, Sub-section (3), authorises the Charity Commissioners to charge fees to the hospitals. There is no precedent for that, and to my mind it is very regrettable that the promoters should have allowed that Clause to slip in. Only last year on the Public Accounts Committee the whole question of fees was discussed. There are two kinds of fees, recording fees and other fees. Here are question and answers as given in evidence before that Committee:

• "I see the scale of fees is prescribed by the Charitable Trusts Act of 1869?—Yes.
• There is no question that they show a very considerable profit? —Yes.
• They more than pay for the work done?
• They do?—Yes, the actual work of recording."

My hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill is so anxious as a newspaper proprietor not to have to ask them to pay a few shillings for an advertisement, that he has inserted in the Bill a Clause which will enable the hospitals to pay an ample profit to the Charity Commissioners if any deed has to be recorded. Not only that, but the Charity Commissioners will for the first time in their long history since 1853 be able to charge fees for any work done. On this the Report of the Estimates Committee is of particular interest. The Geddes Commission went fully into the question of fees and reported that the Charity Commissioners should not be required to charge fees. A little further back we find this evidence:

"Do you charge fees?—No.

Why not?—Because no fees have ever been prescribed and no one has even succeeded in suggesting any scale of fees that would produce any revenue without killing the work of the Charity Commissioners.

You think if you charged fees you would kill your work?—If you charged certain fees you would.

Under the Act of 1869 the Treasury have power to prescribe the fees but they have never exercised the power.

You are doing work for the general body of the public, and, therefore, the general body of the public in the form of the taxpayer ought not to grumble if he has to pay?—Yes, I think that is very fairly put. The Geddes Commission went into that question of fees and they reported that we should be excepted."

That being the case, is it right that the Treasury or the Charity Commissioners should spatchcock into a Private Bill a precedent authorising the Charity Commissioners to charge hospitals for work done, a charge which they make in no other case for any charity?

My other point is that in reality the Charity Commissioners are not the proper body to deal with the matter. Sooner or later we must have a body like the Endowed Schools Commission, which will consider the questions with the experts and will not be in a position of having to do this in addition to a vast amount of routine work. I see from the Estimates Committee that there is only one Charity Commisioner who can do anything at all outside the office. How many of these officials are there who go about the country holding local interviews? There is ample justification for this Bill. There is also ample justification for a much fuller inquiry by the Ministry of Health into the future of charitable trusts with a view to creating some body which will, under the Ministry of Health, conduct an ad hoc inquiry into the position. I hope they will not use the machinery of the Charity Commissioners, which is by no means well adapted to it. With those remarks I wish the Bill a happy discharge.

I wish to give my blessing to the Bill and to tell the Attorney-General that I have no criticism. On the contrary, it is a great compliment that he should have thought this Bill important enough to devote his attention to it. We still object to the absence of representatives of the Ministry of Health, and I regret also the absence of the Charity Commissioner. The House of Commons has a representative on this very important organisation, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He is very rarely called upon to do anything for us, but here is a job in which he might have usefully guided the House. We have an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, and. there he sits, with all his importance and authority, although this is not a Church matter. This is a good Bill and will be useful. We might have made it a better Bill if the Amendment which was put forward to strengthen the wording had been accepted. It would have worked better, and there would have been no injustice in Special Areas. The Bill does not pretend to do very much, but it will enable the hospitals to make their financial position stronger.

I wish to add my congratulations to those which have been expressed. As one who is interested in voluntary hospitals, I would also express my gratitude to those who have promoted the Bill in another place and have carried it through this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) must be very pleased with the twins which have; been promoted this morning. He has done his best to make the most of them, and with all the skill at his command. It has always seemed very unfortunate that many hospitals were not able to do their work to the extent of their scope, because they were not able to attend paying patients. That was not because they were not willing to take them, but because their constitutions do not allow them to do so. Hospitals do not desire to restrict their services, because they are the losers every time.

The financial benefits gained under this Bill will enable them to instal many new inventions that medical science is bringing to the notice of the public. The hospitals need those inventions. On the other hand, the great class of black-coated workers, especially the professional men, a large number of whom cannot afford the high fees charged in nursing homes, will be able to pay their four guineas or six guineas a week, which is the average charge for paying patients in these hospitals. The Bill will extend hospital services to a body of persons who may be just comfortably off but, when an emergency arises, such as a sudden operation, cannot afford to pay for treatment in a nursing home. They do not want to go into the ordinary wards with the poor people, and this Bill will make an intermediate course possible for them. I welcome the Bill whole heartedly and hope it will pass into law without undue delay. It has taken several months already. I believe it was introduced into the other place in July last. This is the final stage.

To me the most pleasing feature of this Bill is in its last line, where it is stated that it shall not apply to Scotland. I have no desire to prevent congratulations among English Members upon obtaining power to establish paying beds in voluntary hospitals, but those of us who know something of the great work of the voluntary hospitals must be disturbed to some extent by the way in which the power to establish paying beds is put forward in the Bill. The hon. Member who has just spoken attracted attention to the danger of creating class distinction and snobbery. People who are paying in these hospitals will be those who will get the greater consideration. Thousands of patients are waiting to be treated in these hospitals. I know that is so in respect of the greatest voluntary hospital in Great Britain, the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, where 3,000 people are waiting to be treated. It will be a great dis-service to those people if any part of the accommodation in that great institution is set apart for paying patients. It will mean the establishment of two waiting lists, one of people to be treated free and the other, and smaller one, of people to be treated upon payment being made.

I hope that the passage of this Bill for England and Wales will not make the Government consider that they have any right to proceed with a similar Measure for the voluntary hospitals of Scotland. Those who are interested in the subject, and more particularly in the institution to which I have referred, which is the best, the biggest and longest established of these great voluntary institutions, know that the hospital is able to carry on its work by voluntary contributions. It receives more voluntary support than, perhaps, any two similar institutions in Great Britain. We shall strenuously fight against any idea of revoking the provisions of the charter of that institution and making it possible to establish paying beds there. I am hardly entitled to speak on the Bill, except in so far as any hon. Member has the right to speak on any subject. I am a Scottish Member, and I hope that there will be no endeavour to establish this sort of thing in Scotland.

The position is amply safeguarded. As the promoter has said, under the Bill the Commissioners are not going to allow paying patients to be taken instead of poor persons. The poor people will still be entitled to treatment.

I was only expressing my feeling with regard to what the result might be, and I do not think that anything that has been said by the promoters, or anything that is in the Bill itself, completely removes the fear that I have.

I am sure that, if any of us who have to do with voluntary hospitals, as almost all of us have, shared the apprehension expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), we should oppose the Bill, but I cannot believe that he really meant it when he said that greater consideration would be shown by voluntary hospitals to those who were prepared to pay. I cannot believe that of the Edinburgh Infirmary, and I am sure it is not the case in any of the hospitals that I know. They were all created, and they all exist, primarily to serve the sick poor, for whom they have done enormous work; and they have a further work to do in seeking out causes of disease and promoting health. They are doing great work in that direction.

We have been told that they are passing through a lean time and are in competition with the municipal hospitals, but I demur to both those statements. The hospitals are always short of cash, because they are doing a great and expanding work, but they are getting enormous voluntary support from the whole class who will be treated in the hospitals all over the country. I do not think that "a lean time" is the correct expression. They are being more and more useful as the community learns the importance of health, and the provision of health is getting more and more expensive. During the last 10 or 15 years there have come into being more and more departments which are like telescopes to look inside us and prevent disease before it begins. Those departments are very expensive, and that is why the balance sheet is difficult to balance; and, without help from all the patients, the hospitals would, of course, have broken down, and there would have been a great disturbance of the whole health service.

With regard to the question of cooperation, we are all agreed that it is most important that this fabric of protection against disease, this method of seeking out health, should be coordinated, but I demur to the word "competition". The hospitals that I know are in the very closest co-operation with the municipal hospitals, and I believe that the progress of the municipal hospitals has been promoted very effectively and with great success. Large numbers of patients are being treated in the municipal hospitals, but the voluntary hospitals are still very busy, and, as the hon. Member mentioned, there are long waiting lists. In try view, and in the view of those who give up their lives to organising this great charity, it will assist them to help the sick poor if this Bill is passed, as I hope it will be. I do not believe it will in any way enlarge the list of people who are asking for free treatment, but it will enable certain people, who at present cannot find a cheap room in which to be healed, to come forward and say they can pay £5, or £4, or whatever it may be. I believe that the Bill is a great step in the right direction. I fully agree that the hospitals must keep in touch with the Ministry of Health, as they are doing and will increasingly do. I very much hope that the House will pass the Bill.

I cannot allow this Bill to pass its Third Reading without joining in expressing the anxiety which apparently is in the minds of other Members of the House with regard to the possibility, at any rate, that it is going to lessen the opportunities of treatment for the sick poor by increasing the opportunities of treatment for those who can afford to pay. I am as conscious as any other Member of the tremendously good work that is done by the voluntary hospitals in the interests of the poor, but I am equally conscious that the major part of that work could not be done at all were it not for the sacrifices made by the poor. It is pretty well known, and to no one better than the governors of voluntary hospitals, that the major portion of the contributions towards the upkeep of these hospitals comes from those who cannot afford to pay the £4 or £6 a week which the hon. Member opposite mentioned as possible in the case of those for whom he is so anxious to provide additional accommodation at the hospitals. If those who can afford to pay £4 or £6 a week in the unfortunate event of their needing such treatment made their contributions to the funds of the hospitals in the same proportion as the working class who pay their pennies, twopences and threepences a week, there would be no need whatever to ask the House to pass a Bill of this description. We have asked time and again for an assurance, and an assurance in general terms has been given, that the Bill will not adversely affect those in whom I am particularly interested. We have been told that their interests are safeguarded, but, when I have asked for a specific reference to the portion of the Bill—

If the hon. Member will turn to Clause 4 of the Bill, he will see that its opening words are:

"The Charity Commissioners shall not make an Order authorising any use or application of property or funds which, apart from the Order, would involve a breach of any trusts upon which the property or funds are held";

while paragraph (c) provides that the Charity Commissioners must be satisfied that

"the authorisation will not diminish or restrict the accommodation for such persons as aforesaid which is provided in the hospital at the date of the application for the Order and which the committee of management would be able to continue to provide if the Order were not made."

That, I think, is quite definite.

Does not that mean, in effect, that, in the case of new buildings provided by the hospital, paying patients will have the first consideration?

It only allows existing buildings, land or property to be used for that purpose if they are not otherwise required. In any case the money has to be raised specially to provide for these paying beds. I can tell the hon. Member from my own experience that the effect of providing accommodation for paying patients at any hospital is not to decrease the number of beds available for ordinary patients, but to increase it. There are many people who cannot afford to pay large charges elsewhere, but who need treatment which hospitals alone can give, and who have to go into the ordinary wards. The effect of providing paying accommodation will be to set free beds in the ordinary wards.

I regret to say that this belated reference to a Clause in the Bill with which I had already familiarised myself by no means removes my apprehensions, nor do I think it will remove those of other Members. I do not wish to detain the House further, and therefore will leave the matter there. I only desire to make one other observation in conclusion. Before the House gives a Third Reading to the Bill, I should like to ask whether hon. Members have sufficiently considered the possibility that voluntary hospitals, after the passing of the Bill, may stand to lose, in a direction that has not been indicated, a large proportion of what they stand to gain financially from the Bill. Voluntary hospitals have to employ a great deal of wage labour, and it is an unfortunate circumstance, justified to some extent by the conditions under which their work is carried on, that in many instances that paid labour is not paid the same rate of remuneration that would be paid for the same kind of labour in the ordinary industrial market.

I am thinking, for instance, of such questions as those associated with the carrying on of laundry and other manual work, sometimes very great in volume, which is associated with hospitals. I had occasion recently to draw attention to the circumstance that voluntary hospitals in some cases were sheltering themselves behind the nature of the work they had and the comparative inadequacy of the funds provided for carrying on that work to pay very miserable wages indeed to some of their employes. A case came to my notice of a woman who made application to the public assistance committee of which I was a member. When the household income had to be considered it was discovered that of her two daughters, who provided the whole of the income, one aged 21 was receiving a wage of 12s. 6d. a week for work in a laundry and the other—

The hon. Member is dealing with matters that are not in the Bill at all. On the Third Reading he must not refer to things unless they are actually in the Bill.

I will pursue the matter no further but, for the reasons I have indicated, I shall certainly vote against the Bill.

I do not share the misgivings of my hon. Friends that this is going to restrict the possibility of the accommodation of poor patients. As one who has spent a large part of his time as an officer of a hospital and who is now vice-chairman of one of the biggest and most important hospitals near London, I have sufficient experience to justify me in assuming that this is going to extend rather than restrict hospital accommodation. The great majority of hospitals can already do this. The Bill is going to affect only a very small minority of hospitals. If the misgivings to which we have been listening w ere justifiable, they would be in operation now. Most of the hospitals, especially in London, already have fee-paying patients, because they are not restricted by the trusts which were their foundation. Because I feel like that, I hope that we are not going to spend very much more time in preventing the Bill going through, but that the House will take the assurance of one who has some experience that this will not diminish the opportunities for the poorer patients getting treatment.

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

It has been a very widespread difficulty on every Bench in the Kingdom for many years past that licences are renewed on any date. Men and women absentmindedly forget to renew their licences and drive for six months or even a year—I have known a case of so driving, for as long as 18 months—without making any attempt to renew their licences. At the present moment no county council or other licensing authority actually sends out a reminder. I see from the criminal statistics for 1933 that no fewer than 219,779 persons were summoned under the Highway Acts for offences in regard to motor cars, of whom 189,000 odd were convicted. I cannot doubt that at least a half of those, possibly more, were in relation to driving licences which had expired and had not been renewed. There are two points of view. One is the point of view of the Treasury. There is no power on the part of a county council when the licence is forwarded to them, perhaps six or eight months late, either to charge a fine or to give a new licence with retrospective effect from the last one, in order to make up the loss caused to the Treasury by the negligence of the applicant. There is not even authority for them to give retrospective effect or to report it to the police and compel a prosecution.

The result is that there has been for a long time past great laxity. Speaking like many other hon. Members of the House, as a Justice of the Peace, I can say with some confidence that probably one licence in every 20, possibly more, is not renewed on due date, and the result is that the list is often burdened with 10 or 20 people who have got into the police net. There are more serious effects than that. If a man's licence has expired, I believe that he is no longer covered by his policy, and that in law the insurance company can repudiate liability as far as the policy is concerned, on the ground that he has not complied with the conditions of the policy, which require him to be in possession of a driving licence which is in force and has not expired. That brings in very elaborate questions of public policy in relation to third party insurance.

We have finally the problem of removals. Something like 10 per cent. of all the holders of licences in this country remove themselves from one dwelling to another in the course of a year, and often it is difficult to trace them. It is seldom, so I gather from the Post Office, that they leave no address behind them, and in practice a post-card reminding them that the licence has to be renewed would, in 99 cases out of 100, and probably 999 cases out of 1,000, be effective. The Bench would be in a far stronger position if they could say, "You have been warned. You had a post-card from the licensing authority nearly a month ago telling you that your licence must be renewed on due date, and you have not done so." There would be no excuse before the Bench in future for absentmindedness or forgetfulness, or for having mislaid the licence or for anything of the sort. Benches and justices of the peace would be in a position to deal far more severely with men and women who had not their licence renewed on due date.

The relief to the police would be very considerable. Every prosecution of this sort involves the attendance of at least one policeman before the Bench, with time off duty for the purpose. Sometimes it involves the attendance of half a dozen policemen, all of whom have to prove the offence, and in more cases than not, the defendants themselves, perhaps lorry drivers, often come from great distances, or private drivers have to lose a day's pay in order to attend the Court and to answer the summons, because, rightly or wrongly, Benches in this country have a habit of being far more severe upon those who fail to appear before them to answer for their conduct than to those who make a humble appearance, and put forward an excuse, however insincere it may be, to their worships. We all feel that way sometimes. I therefore suggest with some confidence to the House, that there is a case for this Clause, or for some form of words which will not merely permit, but require licence authorities to give notice.

When the Post Office renews dog licences or notifications of the Male Servants' Duty or even for armorial bearings to those who are fortunate to have them, a notice is invariably sent in advance from the Post Office to remind them that they have not yet taken out their licence. They send you the blank form by way of encouraging you to fill it in. If you fail to do so, in my experience, you get a note from the local police fiat you have not yet paid the tax that is due. That is one system. I believe that there is also a notification in connect: on with wireless licences, and one of the results is that the prosecutions for failure to take out a wireless licence are far fewer than the prosecutions in respect of motor or driving licences. Although there are at least twice as many wireless licences as driving licences—possibly four times as many—there are far fewer prosecutions. The Minister may be able to tell us how many prosecutions there were last year. Whether there were 30,000 or 60,000, I am not quite sure, but the business of the Courts could be reduced. It is really not to our credit that there should be 189,000 cases, according to the criminal statistics, relating to the highways—a number so great and so large as to enable one to argue that there must have been at least 190,000 policemen occupied for the best part of the day in proving a twopenny-halfpenny offence, the maximum fine for which is normally about 10s.

I beg to second the Amendment.

With regard to a wireless licence, the Post Office always sends a reminder. My experience in regard to dogs is not the same as my hon. Fit end. They never remind me about my dog licence, because, though I have no dog, I have no armorial bearings. In one case I owe the Minister of Transport 7s. 6d. Some years ago I parked my car in a parking place not far from this House, and I did not realise that only one side of the street was available. I had to shelter from a very heavy storm, and when I got back a policeman told me that I had no right to be there. I told him that I had. He asked me to produce my driving licence, and I produced it and found that it was 18 months out of date. I thought that I should get into trouble, but instead, I received a notice saying that I must not do it again. Therefore, I was not fined. It was a pure inadvertence on my part, as I was in Canada when the time for renewing the licence came. The net result was that the Ministry of Transport lost 7s. 6d. There must be very heavy losses to the revenue in this way. It is very unsatisfactory that prosecutions should take place when people have no intention whatever of disobeying the law. It is not easy to remember all these things. In Wartime days we were all documented and could be easily identified, but to-day it is different. We ought to be reminded annually when the new licence is due to be taken out, and then we should cheerfully pay our licence fee.

I would ask the Minister to do something to meet us in regard to this matter. There are many motorists who have no intention whatever of defrauding the local authorities by not applying for the licence. They forget about it, and the first time they realise that anything is wrong is when, in many cases, they go for their holidays. They set off in August, and the first thing that happens is that they get into a police trap, which is there for the purpose of catching people who have not a licence. Last year, in August, I was motoring to Scotland and between Lancaster and Penrith I came to three distinct places where the police were stopping people, to see whether they had driving licences. They had worked the scheme out very thoroughly. They knew the number of your car, and one policeman stamped it so that the other people on the road would know that you had already been stopped and had passed through one of the traps. It is not a very pleasant thing.

The reason why a person has not renewed his licence is very often because he may have been abroad, or may have been very busy and have forgotten to make application. People, perhaps, do not think about it until a day or so before it is time to renew the licence, and perhaps they wait another day or two, with the result that the licence is not applied for until three or four days after it became due. The licence is only renewed from the date of the application. Therefore, for three or four days they may have been driving a motor car without having been licensed. As we proceed nowadays, we seem to have more and more licences to think about. This morning I was making a list. First, there is the wireless licence, then the dog licence, then the male servants' licence, the armorial bearings licence, the driving licence, the game licence, the firearm licence and, lastly, you have to get the licence for your motor car. [An HON. MEMBER: "And your marriage licence."] Yes, and your marriage licence. If the Minister could see his way to remind unfortunate motorists when, it is time to take out another licence it might save the motorist from having one extra summons when, perhaps, he has been rim in for parking his car on the wrong side of the street, or for having no light, or for exceeding the 30 mile speed limit.

In the Committee stage of the Bill a new Clause designed for the same purposes as this Clause was negatived because, as drawn, it would have had no operative effect, and I am afraid that the present Clause is also open to that objection. In listening to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) I was not impressed with the arguments that he put forward. We are not likely to get more revenue by this system of reminders, because we have to face up to the charge of notifying 3,500,000 people per annum. Nor is it likely to make much difference to the work of the courts, because in these cases if the law puts a statutory obligation on the council to notify, it might leave a loophole to the driver of a car who is charged with an offence to say that he had not received his statutory reminder.

Having said that, let me tell the House that since the Clause was placed on the Order Paper I have had the opportunity of ascertaining the views of the Minister of Transport, and I am glad to be able to say that he is impressed by the importance which hon. Members attach to this subject. I understand that he is prepared to adopt a different attitude from that of his predecessors and, what- ever may be the fate of this Bill, to instruct county councils and borough councils when they issue driving licences in future to copy the name and address of the licensee on a reminder form, to be despatched shortly before the expiring day. In view of that assurance of what the Minister intends to do, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Clause.

I am glad to hear the reassuring words of the hon. Member. This Clause has a great amount of substance in it. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox), because I know that he motors to Scotland a great deal. It is right that the views of a Scottish Member should be heard on this matter. I am glad to have an assurance that the Minister will act in future in a very different way from that of his predecessors. The motorist is well worthy of consideration. The tendency of recent legislation has been to make it more difficult for people to drive cars on our great highways. I do not suggest that motorists ought not to be hemmed in with a certain amount of legislation, having regard to the enormous increase every year in the number of motor vehicles which are owned by almost every section of the community. I do not say that it is not necessary, in view of the number of road hogs among motorists, but at the same time the tendency of legislation has been to make things more difficult for the motorists, and I am delighted that the Minister of Transport is at last going to do something which will make things more convenient for them. In other words, the officials will be given something to do. They will now have to remind the large number of motorists throughout the country that their licence has expired, and thus save them from a great deal of fussy interference on the part of local authorities.

I should like to say one word in amplification of what the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has said. We are asking the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) to withdraw the proposed Clause on the assurance which has been given that the Minister of Transport will deal with this matter in the way which the hon. Member for Sunderland has outlined; that is, he will instruct county councils and county borough councils that when they issue a driving licence they should at the same time copy the name and address of the licensee on a reminder form and despatch it a few days before the licence becomes out of date.

Will the hon. Member indicate the authority under which the Minister can act in this matter?

The Minister has the power under Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which replaces powers given by the Motor Car Act, 1903, and enables the Minister to make regulations generally with regard to licences, and in particular with regard to the record of licences.

Does it give him authority to pass ant charge on to the subject?

It allows the Minister, after having instructed the county council to do these things, to pay out of the Road Fund an equivalent amount, for any expenses. We do not anticipate that the expenses will be very heavy. There is one point I should like to make clear. The hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin said that in his opinion the law was that if you do not hold a current driving licence your third party insurance becomes void. That is a view which is commonly held; but it is not correct. The only requirement is that a driver must at some time have held a driving licence and that he must not at the moment be disqualified from holding a driving licence. Considerable apprehension has been caused by people not quite realising the position. I cannot say how many prosecutions have taken place, but, at the same time, we want to meet the will of the House in this matter, and I hope the assurance I have given on behalf of my right hon. Friend will meet their wishes, and that licences will be renewed a little more punctually than in the past.

I should like to ask whether the Order will be made by the Minister under his statutory powers? If so, it will have statutory force. In that event, will a person who is summoned for not having a driving licence or for not taking out a driving licence be able to plead that the statutory requirements have not been complied with in so far as the duty imposed on a county council by the Minister of Transport has not been fulfilled of notifying a driver that his licence has expired? I gathered from the promoter of the Bill that the Minister was doing this by regulation, but if he does it under statutory authority it will have statutory force, and may cause complications.

It will have to be proved that the council has sent out the reminder, and not that the man has received it. It does not relieve motorists from any obligation, as suggested by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie).

I never intended to suggest that. What I meant to say was that it would make it a little easier for those whose memories are short if they received a reminder.

We do not want motorists to think that they are relieved of their obligation of renewing their licences.

In view of the most satisfactory statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, for which I thank him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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

This proposal provides that as from January next the issue of driving licences shall be standardised so as to begin from a particular date, 1st April until 31st March, so that motorists will readily know when their licence expires. I admit that the new Clause is far less necessary in view of the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary that the county council shall send a reminder to the driver that his licence has expired, but from the financial point of view there is something to be said for regularising the position of licences. It will make an appreciable difference to local authorities to know the approximate sum which will come in on a given date; and it will make it easier for everybody. There are strong objections to a great mass of clerical work falling on the office of a local authority on a single day in the year, but it should be possible to arrange for licences to be dealt with on the 1st of the month or the first day of the quarter, and it is quite easy to calculate the proportionate amount for licences taken out for periods of less than a year. They could be calculated on a scale of 6d. a month or is. 3d. a quarter. It is difficult to see why licences should be streaming into the offices of the authority all the year keeping a clerk engaged on half-speed, when the work could be concentrated and done more rapidly, even done mechanically, if it were concentrated in a single month. The Minister of Transport has power to do these things by regulation, and I hope he will consider *is as a matter of routine rather than of public convenience, because I admit that the public convenience has been met by the assurance he has given.

I beg to second the Motion.

I would like to say that I do not quite agree on the date of 31st March.I think it would be much more convenient if the day could be the first day of the year, and then it might be possible to unify all the licences on one application form. If that were possible it would save a great deal of clerical work and people would be able to pay all their licences at one time, thus being spared a great deal of trouble. I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) for moving this new Clause.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider very long before accepting this proposed new Clause. I think there is a great deal to be said for spreading the issue of licences over the whole of the year, but making them applicable from, say, the first day of the month. If this proposed new Clause were accepted, what would be the position of the local authorities? It would mean that they would have to engage additional staff in order to issue the whole of the licences at one period, and thus they would not be able to spread the work over the whole year and make it a proper whole-time job for a proper staff. If it were possible to divide the 3,000,000 odd licences by twelve, so that on the first day of each month one-twelfth of the various licences would be issued, that would undoubtedly spread the work out over the year and would prevent a big rush on 1st January, or the first day of any particular period. There is a great deal to be said also for the taking out of a licence in the middle of the month but dating it for the first of the month, if that were possible. By these means it might be possible to spread the work out more evenly over the year and employ a permanent staff engaged in issuing licences, instead of employing a large number at one period of the year and then having either to dismiss them or put them on to some other work for the remaining part of the year.

I hope the House will not agree to this proposed new Clause. After the remarks of the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), there is little that need be said. If the issue of all these licences were concentrated into one day, it would mean that the local authority would be seriously overworked at that time and would have to provide casual labour, which we want to avoid. What we want is regular work spread over the whole year, and for that reason alone I suggest that the House ought not to accept this Clause. For instance, the London County Council have to issue some 300,000 licences, and it does not call for a great deal of imagination to see what congestion there would be if they were all issued on one day. I hope the hon. Member will not press this new Clause.

I hope this proposed new Clause will be rejected. If the mover could see the work that has to be done by the London County Council when, at the beginning of the year, it has to deal with the great number of licences that are issued at that particular time, I think he would realise that the new Clause would put on bodies such as the London County Council a task which they ought not be called upon to undertake. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his proposed new Clause.

I was sorry to hear the last two speeches addressed to the House. I had thought that on this occasion the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), and supported with my name on the Order Paper, might have been favourably considered, because the previous proposed new Clause, which my hon. Friend withdrew at the request of the Parliamentary Secretary, was designed to do something for the motorist. I am perfectly sure, in spite of that which has been said by the two speakers who preceded me, particularly the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), that this new Clause would help the, local authorities to obtain greater efficiency. The idea of the new Clause is to make it easier for the local authorities, and incidentally for the motorist, by standardising the date, which would tend towards greater efficiency. Surely the tendency of all modern legislation is towards greater efficiency—centralisation if you like. The hon. Baronet the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) suggested that the 31st March might be an inconvenient date. I suppose he had some idea that it was too near 1st April And that that would be a very inappropriate date for licences to be issued in view of the mentality which some motorists have. Nevertheless I am not seriously disturbed about the date of 31st March. I think there is a very great deal of substance in this proposed new Clause, and I shall await with great interest and expectancy the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary.

I am convinced that the hon. Members who support this Clause have had very little to do with the local taxation work of the London County Council, for anybody who knows something of that work will realise that while there may be some comparison between the issue of driving licences and wireless or dog licences, there is not much comparison. The issue of dog or wireless licences has very little reference to anything except a certificate permitting the holder of that licence to use a wireless or own a dog, but the issue of a driving licence is a very different matter indeed. Anybody who has seen the records required and the correlation of the information contained on a motor driving licence will understand that the book-keeping involved is very different in the case of a driving licence and in the cases of the other licences to which I have referred. It is because I can visualise what would happen in an enormous council such as the London County Council or the Middlesex County Council that I ask the House to reject the proposed new Clause.

I cannot advise the House to accept this new Clause. I had hoped that perhaps it would not be moved, as we were able to meet the spirit of the last new Clause proposed. The reason I say this is not that we do not wish to make it more convenient for motorists, but because of the grave administrative difficulties. As hon. Members with personal knowledge have said, the dislocation of work would be simply appalling, and I would remind the House that by accepting the principle of the last new Clause proposed we put even more work on the local authorities in that they will have to send reminders in the case of every driving licence. If the new Clause were accepted it would mean that at one time of the year, 31st March, all the councils would have to engage an enormous amount of casual labour. Certain people who are busy all the year round on this licensing work would be thrown out of their jobs and casual labour would be substituted. I think no part of the House would like that, and I advise the House not to accept the Clause.

With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw the Clause. I hope they will continue to consider the importance of making administrative changes in the issue of licences by county councils by regulations that will make them uniform for the whole of England and Wales and not peculiar to any particlar county.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after "Act," to insert:

"but is certified by the licensing authority for the purposes of section thirty-one (Licences of drivers of heavy goods vehicles) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to be competent to control the movement of such a vehicle as is hereafter in this sub-section mentioned and to have a knowledge of the highway code."

I consider this is a very important point which ought to be gone into carefully. The effect of the Amendment would be to insist that the steersman of a vehicle which comes under the Clause has to have some sort of licensing authority over him. If it is carried it will enable the steersman of such a vehicle to go to the traffic commissioners of the area and get a certificate which would say that he was competent to steer such a vehicle and knew something about the Highway Code. I would like to explain what types of vehicles are affected by this Clause. It provides for exemption for a person acting under the orders of another person who is engaged in the driving of a vehicle and who is licensed by the Road Traffic Acts, as a steersman of a motor vehicle, subject to a five-miles per hour speed limit, who does not himself hold a licence under the Road Traffic Act. The vehicles include some form of tractors, agricultural engines, steam-ploughing engines, and travelling showmen's vehicles which go from fair to fair. These engines have been made for some three-quarters of a century and are of a somewhat antiquated design in many cases, and it requires two men to drive and steer these vehicles. The visibility from the engine is not very good. On the left there is generally a big flywheel which is turning round and obscures the vision to the left. If the steersman happens to be sitting, he does not get a very good view of the road. His vision of the road, I believe, is some 100 feet ahead of the vehicle.

On these vehicles there is, first of all, a driver. He is, in fact, an engineer. He is the man who is responsible for getting steam up, applying the brakes and generally looking after the firing and mechanical side of the engine. When the engine goes downhill the driver or engineer has to see that his fire is properly damped down, that he has not got too much steam up, and that his brakes are properly on. At the same time he is giving the necessary signals to the men behind on the different trailers. They can pull three enormous trailers and a watering cart, a train of five vehicles travelling along the road. The engineer blows a whistle and each man who is in charge of the different trailers behind has to apply the brakes at the proper time, or take them off, as the case may be. This Clause does not affect these men. The driver-engineer would continue to have a licence, but he is not the man who steers the vehicle. The man who steers the vehicle is a steersman. He is the man who actually turns the small wheel which directs the front wheels of the vehicle along its course on the road, and this Clause, if it goes through as it stands at present, will mean that the steersman will not need to have a licence. Anyone will be able to steer one of these big machines—a lunatic, or a half-wit, or even the fat lady in the show, if she is able to get into the small space available. On the other hand, of course, you might have the driver who goes round "The Walls of Death."

It does seem very important that this House should decide whether this steersman should or should not have any form of licence control. What happens if the vehicle gets out of control on a hill? Obviously the engineer or driver is not troubling very much what the steersman is doing. He is thinking of the machine, the brakes and stopping the machine from getting out of control, but the person steering the vehicle may know nothing about the Highway Code, and may never have been on the road before. Yet he is steering this vehicle which is plunging down the hill.

On 15th March, 1936, in the "Sunday Express" I saw a picture of three enormous traction engines which were hauling the world's largest transformer which weighed 100 tons. This crashed at Seven Hills Road, near Cobham, and the two front engines overturned. I do not know what was the cause of this accident, who the drivers were or whether they had a licence, but I would only point out that by this Clause, if it goes through, the steersmen of the vehicles need have had no experience at all of road conditions or any knowledge of the Highway Code. Yet they could have been taking the world's largest transformer over our roads. Often we have seen these vehicles trying to negotiate crossings—a long train of five vehicles ill coupled together —and they have, in many cases, difficulty in steering their way around narrow lanes in villages. Also these vehicles are very heavy, and if one has been in a motor car following them one has often seen the damage they do to the roads. The pressure of their wheels, although they have rubber to-day, tears up the tar on hot days, and it is often a help that the two people responsible for the vehicle should have some knowledge of road conditions and should know whether a machine is doing damage to the roads.

I should also like to ask whether there is any age limit for the steersman. If the Bill goes through anyone can steer one of these vehicles. If there is an accident and a case is taken to court, there will be great difficulty. How is it possible to say whether the steersman was or was not under the control of the engineer of the vehicle? We have often seen the steersman in sole charge of the machine and the engineer busying himself about the machine. The position might be likened to t -tat of the helmsman of a ship, but that is no fair comparison. The steersman of a ship is under the direct orders of the Captain or navigating officer. They are only there for the navigation of the ship. They tell the steersman or helmsman exactly on what point of the compass has to steer. The helmsman is not able to alter or deflect the direction of the situ]: without receiving orders from them, but in this case the steersman turns the wheel and steers the traction engine in any direction he likes. It is absurd to argue that because these vehicles are limited 10 five miles an hour it is unnecessary to have any form of licensed steersmen at all. There are no vehicles which can do greater damage on the road. They are enormously heavy, and if there is an accident with any other vehicle, that other vehicle is bound to be smaller and to suffer most.

It so happens that this Bill passed through its Second Reading with hardly any discussion, and upstairs in Committee this Clause also went through without discussion. But I ask the promoters and the Minister to give us convincing reasons why the steersmen of these vehicles need have no licence at all. Is it a question of expense, or is it a question of the difficulty of getting the necessary qualified engineers and drivers? I think this raises the whole question of the policy of the Ministry of Transport with regard to improving safety on the road. Another Clause in this Bill requires drivers of different types of vehicles to be tried out on those special types of vehicles, but here is the biggest vehicle which can travel the road, and the man who steers it is to be able to have no licence at all. It will appear to many people very astonishing if the Minister of Transport should support such a policy, and that these enormous vehicles should be allowed to be directed by a steersman who has no knowledge of the Highway Code and who may never have been on a vehicle on the road in his life before.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have seen five or six accidents in my own constituency in the past six months, two of them serious, and in each case fatal, and in each case the direct consequence of some failure on the part of the steersman or the steering gear of the rear vehicle, and I feel that there is at least as strong a case for these men being licensed as for the ordinary lorry driver for whom special provision is made in the Bill. It is not a question of the fat lady or of the child who is steering. That is an extreme case, but there is a very serious case for the Amendment. I do not know whether the Minister has statistics of the accidents in which a timber trailer behind a traction engine has been involved, or a traction engine, or some other very heavy vehicle which requires a steersman, but I feel that they must be considerable. I am not surprised at these results. On some of these very narrow roads it is not possible for the man in front to know what is going on behind, and the co-ordination of the responsibility of the man in front and the man behind requires consideration.

This seems to me to be a reasonable and a good Amendment. I have not heard the case against it argued, and it was news to me that these men did not require to be tested by the Ministry of Transport, but I am certain that if the Ministry wish to reduce accidents on the roads, they will be well advised to bring these men under the same type of control as they use over lorry drivers and drivers of other heavy vehicles. Timber vehicles, heavy lorries carrying propellers and transformers, and vehicles carrying these vast beams which come down sometimes from Birmingham to London, with as many as four steersmen on them, all require great care and great knowledge if there is not to be a disaster. I have seen these casualties happen, and I have heard the allegation made that the steersman rather than the man in front has been at fault. I feel that there is a good case made out for the Amendment, and I shall await with interest the views of the promoter of the Bill and of the Ministry of Transport.

I trust the Amendment will not be pressed, and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said he had not heard the case against it, I will try to give some reasons why it should not be accepted. I will deal first with his final remarks, because I was interested to hear about the vehicles that came up from Birmingham to London and their relationship to this Amendment. The Bill deals only with heavy vehicles going at a rate not exceeding five miles an hour. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend can take it for granted that the number of such vehicles travelling from Birmingham to London at five miles an hour is very small, and they are certainly not those in regard to which he said he saw an accident last week.

At the Cumberland Hotel.

I hope the vehicle did not get in there. I should be very sad if this Clause 1 were deleted. For a. very long time the people affected by this Bill, the showmen, have been trying to get the Ministry of Transport to accept their view about the proposed new regulations, and I trust my two hon. Friends are not trying to lead the House to believe that this Bill is trying to undo something or remove some licence which has been in existence, because up to 1930 there was no consideration of this matter at all. The Act which was put through this House in 1934 has now imposed upon the steersmen upon these heavy vehicles the obligation of taking out a licence to drive, which means that the steersman of a heavy vehicle, in order to be in a position to be qualified, has to go through the Ministry of Transport test to drive a motor car. I would like to ask the supporters of the Amendment, even if we were to grant their case, what added ability would be conferred upon the steersman of a heavy vehicle if we compelled him to learn to drive a motor car?

I will not take my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to task for his facetious remarks about a lunatic or a half-wit, but I want to assure him that these vehicles which belong to the showmen, and of which there are not many on the road, cost £2,000 or £3,000 each, and it is not reasonable to assume that a business man would do anything which would allow any person other than a common-sense man to sit or stand by the side of his engineer and take charge of the steering gear of one of these vehicles. My hon. Friends have to understand that steering a motor car is very different from steering one of these vehicles. A motor car is a fast-moving vehicle, and those who are now trained to drive and steer a motor car are more technical and are able without great difficulty to pass the test required of them.

The reason this Bill was not discussed on Second Reading was the active interest which Members have shown in other private Members' Bills, and the reason why this Amendment was not discussed in Committee upstairs was because the Chairman did not consider it was in Order. Steersmen on heavy vehicles have no relation to the mechanical propelling power. An hon. Member asked what would happen if one of these vehicles began to do downhill, and he made reference to the Highway Code. I have read the Highway Code, and one does not require to be a technician in order to understand it, but it does not say what a man ought to do when a heavy vehicle is going downhill. Obviously, however, the thing to do is to put the brakes on. In normal circumstances it is not the duty of the steersman to do that. He has charge of the wheel only and acts always under the instructions of the driver. The driver is a technician who has served his apprenticeship, but the steersman is a labourer or a craftsmen's mate who, if he has average intelligence, can be trained to do the job in a few days. The Amendment would entirely destroy the purpose of the Clause. If this Bill passes it will be a great encouragement to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), who was very lucky ire being drawn twice in the Ballot, and it will be a tribute to his zeal. If my hon. Friends will withdraw their Amendments and help us to get the Bill through, they will earn our gratitude.

Why should the Statute Book be encumbered with such a Clause as this? How many people does it affect? I do not suppose it affects more than a handful.

Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that the Amendment is not to leave out the Clause. The point that he wants to raise will came better on Third Reading.

I was coming to the Amendment which we are discussing. The Clause seems useless and the Amendment equally as useless. I am amazed to think that the Clause merely relieves the steersmen of paying a sum of 5s.

Et relieves him of the test.

I understand that if he has no licence he will pay no licence fee. If he misses the test under the Clause he will be caught under the Amendment, because, under the Amendment, he must be competent to control the movement of these heavy vehicles-and to have knowledge of the Highway Code. If he must be competent to control the movement, there must be someone to pass his competence. The Amendment will, therefore. to a large measure defeat the object of the Clause. There is no reason why a steersmen should not pay a licence fee if he is engaged on a vehicle operating on a road. A poor old person in an invalid carriage, who is less qualified and less able to pay the licence fee, has to get a licence to drive his carriage. Therefore, there is little consolation to be derived from the fact that we are relieving the steersmen of his duty to pay the 5s. fee.

This Amendment appeared on the Paper only this morning, and as both the Clause and the Amendment are rather technical, the promoter of the Bill asked me if I would look at it and explain my views to the House. This problem of the steersmen only came up when the driving tests were instituted under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, under which drivers on the road had to be tested before they had a licence. It was before a simple matter. This is not a question of the 5s., but of the test. I want the House to realise, also, that if they pass the Clause without the Amendment, as I am going to ask the House to do, there is no additional danger on the road, as the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) said. There are comparatively few of these vehicles, and they yearly become less; the steersmen will be as dangerous, or as little dangerous, as they have been all through the years up to the present. These heavy traction engines, which are limited to a speed of five miles per hour, are controlled by two men—the driver and the steersman. If anything happens to the vehicle and they get into any kind of trouble, it has been laid down again and again that the driver and not the steersman is the man in charge. It is, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, rather like the position of a ship where the helmsman is under the orders of the navigator, but he has not himself necessarily to be a skilled navigator.

There are perhaps from 2,000 to 4,000 men affected, including about 400 showmen, and they felt that there was a hardship. They came to see me on a deputation and explained that it was impossible for these people to carry out the provisions of the Road Traffic Act as they could not be tested on their traction engines because they were not the drivers. What would happen would be that they would have to be tested on a motor car and if they passed that test they would be given their licences, but because a man can drive an Austin Seven motor car I fail to see that that makes him any better as the steersman of a traction engine. When this deputation came to me I went very carefully into the matter with the officials of the Department and we came to the conclusion that there was a. hardship and that to grant this concession would not increase the danger on the roads in the slightest degree. The Minister would not have supported Clause 1 of this Bill had he felt there was any danger in making this concession. The vehicle must be of the five-mile-per-hour class and if the steersman does do something reckless—and I cannot imagine him doing anything reckless—the driver beside him could put on the brake and stop the vehicle very quickly.

I was asked whether there was now an age limit. The answer is that these persons must be 21 years old, and in the case of showmen I believe they are nearly always the gentlemen who look after the coconut shies. We are trying to simplify matters for a comparatively small number of people, and if we were to accept this Amendment it would go right against the whole purpose in view. I give the House the assurance that if this Bill goes through we shall write to the Showmen's Guild and to the Traction Engine Owners' Association telling them that we expect them to see that everybody who acts as a steersman has a knowledge of the Highway Code. It would be no use our writing to say that we expect the steersman to know how to steer, because the showmen, for their own sake, will take every care to see that the man is as efficient as he can be. Although only a small number of people are affected we are meeting a grievance. Again, I can assure the House that my Department feel that no danger will be involved, and I hope the House will reject the Amendment and pass the Clause as it is.

As the Minister has said that he is prepared to look into the matter and do something to try to improve the knowledge of the Highway Code among steersmen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after the second "vehicle," to insert:

"which is registered under the Roads Act, 1920, in the name of a person engaged in agriculture and is used on roads for carrying or hauling the produce of agriculture or articles required for agricultural purposes and"

My Amendment would have the effect of making it compulsory for the steersman of a travelling showman's vehicle to continue to have a licence, but would exempt the steersmen of agricultural vehicles. There is a certain amount of difference between these agricultural vehicles and showmen's traction engines. Agricultural vehicles always go in pairs. There is one engine pulling the threshing machine or the steam-plough, and another engine pulling the men's living hut and the steam cultivator and, possibly, the watercart. These groups are only half the length, both in point of size and of the number of vehicles, of the goups pulled by the showmen's traction engines, and for the most part they move only about the country districts. They go on a tour from village to village, from farm to farm and from field to field, and wherever possible they avoid going near any towns. Travelling showmen go from fair to fair, often long distances, and they travel through big cities. We have often seen them travelling through the heart of London. I ask the promoters of the bill what is done when the driver of one of these vehicles becomes ill or is taken ill. Are there any spare men likely to possess the necessary licence to take these vehicles along the road? When a showman packs up he has to move on—though it may be a Sunday—to the next place as soon as possible. The Parliamentary Secretary said there was no additional danger by reason of the steersman not knowing anything about the Highway Code. I cannot agree with him. I cannot think that the driver of one of these vehicles when he is, perhaps, trying to go round Piccadilly Circus or Hyde Park Corner should be just as safe as a man who has some knowledge of the Highway Code.

I certainly never said that I did not think there was any danger in a steersman having no knowledge of the Highway Code. Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the OFFICIAL REPORT and see what I did say, because it certainly was not that.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I had no intention of misquoting him. I should like to ask the promoters of the Bill whether there are any spare men who can drive these vehicles in the case of illness, or what happens in such circumstances?

I beg to second the Amendment.

I support the Amendment on the grounds set forth in the concluding portion of the speech, that these showmen are constantly travelling through large towns and turning and reversing in the main streets with their heavy vehicles. They are a public danger unless they are brought under regulations like any other traffic in the streets. They have to go through London, they go considerable distances and chiefly they move at night. They are less under control at present than any other form of traffic, and I feel that there are strong grounds for introducing effective regulations which will give confidence that the drivers will not do some silly, foolish or careless thing which may have the worst consequences to traffic on the road. Their numbers are surprisingly large. I did not realise there were so many of them until I heard the Parliamentary Secretary. There are the showmen on one hand, contractors on the other, the agricultural owners who carry their steam ploughs from place to place and rotary tractors, which are doing a large business in some counties, and they also have their steersmen.

I do not know what the reply of the promoters may be, or the view of the Ministry of Transport, but I should not like it to be thought that there is not a serious case for consithration. The roads of the country are notoriously narrow, and the narrower they are the greater the danger presented by these double vehicles, however slowly they may be going, even at one-tenth of the:peed of the traffic going in the opposite direction. A collision may be no less inevitable if the man in charge of the heavy vehicle is not on the proper side of the road and does not know what to do.

I listened very carefully to the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, and as far as I gathered they did not explain whether or not, if this Amendment were inserted, the Clause would be limited to agricultural vehicles. Keen as I am about agriculture I think it would be rather unfair to limit the benefits of the Bill to agricultural workers. This class of vehicle is not very much on the roads. Showmen use the roads very much more than agricultural workers.

I ask the Mover of this Amendment to withdraw it. It is not correct to say that showmen are much in London streets. When they travel in London it is generally late at night when the traffic is least. The Amendment has no relation to the problem of showmen as such.

I hope my hon friend will not press this Amendment. His action in moving it is contrary to his action in withdrawing the previous Amendment. He says that the purpose of the Amendment is to allow agricultural vehicles to have the benefit of the Clause, and it would exclude showmen. He asked what would be the position if the driver of the vehicle was ill. This Clause deals entirely with steersmen and a steersman has not to hold a driving licence; and there is no question of his having to step into the place of the driver in case the driver is ill.

Before we come to a decision the House might ha-ae the expert advice of the Ministry of Transport.

I tried to deal fully with the point of the steersman in what I said on the previous Amendment. I fail to see what the effect of this Amendment would be other than to cut out altogether the showmen and to keep this concession for the steersmen of agricultural vehicles only. I cannot see any reason for doing that. I have seen agricultural tractors pulling just as big loads as I have seen behind the showmen's engines. The promoter of the Bill has explained that a steersman cannot take the place of a driver who is ill. The driver must have a licence. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

I am very sorry that I cannot agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope the Amendment will not be withdrawn. Its object is to assist those engaged in farming. I was surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that trains of agricultural vehicles on the pubic highways were just as heavy as the trains of showmen's vehicles. If the hon. and gallant Member reflects on that assertion I do not think he will be able to substantiate it. Things are very hard indeed for the agriculturists of the country at the present time. I am satisfied that there is a point of substance in the Amendment as it affects the Agriculturist. We want in every way to help agriculturists to get their produce expeditiously to the various markets, if they are fortunate enough to find markets for their goods.

My hon. Friend who has just spoken does not seem to know what the Amendment will do. It says that showmen shall be cut out and agriculturists left in. I hope that both the showmen and the agriculturists will be left in.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after "licence," to insert:

"at a fee not exceeding one shilling and threepence."

This Amendment deals with the fee which drivers will have to pay for a provisional licence. To-day they have to pay, first of all, 5s. for the provisional licence, then 7s. 6d. for the test, and if they are successful in the test they pay another 5s. That is a total of 17s. 6d. Everyone has to pay that sum to get a licence to drive a vehicle of this character. In the Committee, the Minister made an important statement. He said he was prepared after a full year of the working of the provisional licence to see whether the cost could be reduced. I therefore ask him to reduce the cost of this licence at the earliest possible moment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

My reasons are the same as those put forward by the hon. Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox). These licences cost too much. They are a heavy burden on the young men who are the next generation of drivers, and who have to go to their employers and ask them for a loan, which may be as much as a whole week's wages, to enable them to pay for the licence to drive. We ought not to tax those drivers. Taxation ought only barely to cover the cost of administration. As with the Charity Commissioners so with the Ministry of Transport; there should he no question of their making profit by any fee which they find it necessary to charge for licences. There are strong grounds for asking for the reduction proposed in the Amendment.

Here, again, there must be some misapprehension, because if the Amendment is accepted it will put up the cost of the licences from is. to is. 3d. The licence which we are discussing under Clause 2 is the vocational licence, granted by the Chairman of the Traffic Commission, and the fees at present charged are purely nominal. Under powers given to the Minister in Section 31 of the Act of 1934, he can charge what fee he likes, and the amount he decided upon in this case was 1s. I can assure the House that the Minister has no intention of increasing the fee by the additional 3d. that the Amendment invites him to charge.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. In doing so

As was the case with the previous Bill which received its Third Reading this morning, the House passed the Second Reading without a discussion, and it might be as well if I said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Agreed".] As it seems to be the wish of the House that we should take the Third Reading at once, I do not propose to continue my remarks.

I enter a protest against this procedure. As the promoter of the Bill rightly said, it passed its Second Reading without any explanation being given to the House, and before we pass to the Third Reading we are certainly entitled to know something about its provisions. I suggest that the promoter should make his statement.

I take the same view. We ought to have some sort of explanation, because thousands of His Majesty's subjects will be affected by the Bill, and it ought not to pass us without a word.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 18, at the end, to insert:

"by any person who has entered into a contract with an insurance committee under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, for the supply of drugs and appliances."

This Amendment, which I move in the absence of those hon. Members whose names are attached to it on the Order Paper, is consequential on the Amendment which was passed this day week, and is, indeed, a restrictive Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 13, line 20, after "vegetables," insert "(including mushrooms)."—[Mr. Loftus.]

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

In moving the Third Reading, may I first express my thanks and obligations to the Chairman of the Committee, to you, Sir, and, indeed, to all the Members of the Committee and of the House generally, who have shown such patience —such almost incredible patience—during the many weeks that the Bill has been under discussion. In particular, I would like to express my obligations to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, who has had, as we all know, a large volume of other work, and to whom the extra work entailed by this Bill must have meant an added strain. I should like also to express my obligations to the officials and to the Parliamentary draftsman. Members of all parties in the House have co-operated in and supported the Bill, and I would specially express my indebtedness to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie). We have not on all occasions seen eye to eye, but they have been keen and enthusiastic supporters of the Bill, and their help has been invaluable.

The long journey is almost ended, and I confess that, had I known of the difficulties and dangers that it would involve, I might have hesitated before introducing the Bill. Looking back on the many difficulties that have had to be faced, I feel that possibly it was almost too big a task for a private Member to undertake, and I feel that I could only have carried it to this stage through the kindness and co-operation of the Members of the Committee. May I point out that the Second Reading of the Bill was agreed to in the House by 191 votes to 8, and on the Third Reading I suggest that the House should consider for a moment whether any alteration has been made in the principle or in the important details of the Bill which has so modified it as to justify a reversal of the very emphatic and overwhelming decision which was given on the Second Reading. I submit that, while there have been alterations, they have not been of great importance, and have not affected the principle of the Bill.

The only big important alteration which could be said to affect the principle is the addition of Clause 6. That Clause, which was added in Committee, gave power to the City of London and the London County Council to exempt within their boundaries any already established Sunday market. That exemption was given for one reason only. It was felt that if in these old markets, where you often have half Jewish and half non-Jewish traders, you suddenly allowed the Jewish traders to continue and stopped the non-Jewish traders, there would inevitably be racial feeling, and there might he real racial trouble. It was to obviate that, that the gap in the principle of the Bill was made, and that we give the County Council power to authorise, under safeguards, the continuance of those markets. An improvement was also made in Committee by giving the conscientious believers in the Sabbath being kept on Saturday, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, the same advantages as are given to the orthodox Jewish community. We have had to steer between two dangers. The first was making the restrictions so severe that the administration would have caused resentment, and the other was making the exemptions so wide as to destroy the utility of the Bill. I submit that, on the whole, we have steered a middle course between those two dangers.

On the Second Reading I said I would try to be guided by three principles. The first was to flame the exemptions in such a way as not unduly to interfere with the habits of our people, above all not unduly to interfere with the habit they have acquired in recent years of going out on summer afternoons, all classes and conditions of our people, and enjoying the amenities of the country. The second was that we must recognize that the poor, especially the very poor, have not the same facilities as the better off, and we must not do anything to interfere with those facilities. The third was to be careful about interfering with old-established habits and customs. I believe that those principles have been carried out, and that it is a much better and a much more practicable Bill than when it passed the Second Reading. It is supported by hundreds of thousands of people. There are shopkeepers' associations—one alone has over 40,000 members, and in all there are well over 100,000—urgently demanding that the House should pass the Bill. There are trade unions connected with the retail trade unanimously in support of the Bill. There are hundreds of thousands of voices asking the House to pass it because they realise that the increased opening of every kind of shop is an increasing evil which more and more prevents shopkeepers and assistants from enjoying the recreations which are so necessary for mental and bodily health. I feel that the Bill, while in many ways it does not go as far as some would wish, and goes too far in the opinion of others, is a fair and just medium, and that it will give real liberty to tens of thousands of people. If, by any chance, it were to fail, I cannot see anything being done in the future. I cannot see any Government finding the time or having the appetite to go through all the difficulties that we have had to face. I cannot see any private Member courageous enough again to undertake the task. I beg the House to give the Bill the Third Reading.

I beg to second the Motion.

I have explained more than once that there is at present no legal limitation of the hours of shop assistants above 18 years of age and, so far as Sunday trading is concerned, the large majority of assistants are women, and this will certainly mean relief to thousands of women who at present have to work seven days a week. That is a reason why I have backed it. The only unfortunate thing is that in the Committee we had to find accommodation for so many that the Bill is not all what I should like, but nevertheless it will bring relief to thousands of assistants.

I should like to congratulate the parent of the Bill on his skill, tact and good sense in guiding it through. If he had not shown some willingness to meet criticism and make concessions, I do not believe that it would have had a chance of getting on the Statute Book. I have largely been met. I do not say that the concessions made have been as generous or as full as I should have desired, but I recognise that on Clause 5, which is a comprehensive Clause, some of my difficulties have been met. It would be a mistake for the country and the House to think that this is a Sunday Closing Bill. Many people have that impression, not only inside but outside the House. It is very short of that. After it has passed into Law, trams and omnibuses will be running, tobacconists and refreshment shops and licensed premises will be open, and there are many exceptions to the ordinary trades and businesses. That is inevitable. The hon. Member was careful to exempt, for some months in the year at any rate, part of his own constituency. In the seaside towns during summer time shops will be open on Sunday morning if the shopkeepers want it. The interesting thing is that the parent of the Bill was rightly careful to safeguard the interests of his constituency.

I want to make it clear that I did not need merely to introduce or to support that in consideration of my constituency, because as far as I am aware no shops in my constituency, except those mentioned in the First Schedule, are open on Sunday or wish to open.

That may be so, and in making that reasonable concession the hon. Gentleman acted wisely, because there is such a variety of businesses and circumstances that we should have had hardship, friction and difficulty. The great case in favour of the Bill is that it is a logical Bill. It attempts in its final form, after we have spent many days on it, to adapt its provisions to the varieties of conditions throughout the country, and for that I am deeply grateful. In London, circumstances are very different from what they are in the country, and if the hon. Gentleman had not been prepared to support Clause 5 as it is now in the Bill, I should reluctantly have been compelled to do as I did on the Second Reading and vote against the Bill on the Third Reading. I believe that with the introduction of local option and the powers and provisions provided to consult the requirements of the district, much of that difficulty has been removed.

I have special care for the interests of the traders. If this Bill had gone through in its original form, it would have spelt ruin to a great number of small people struggling to make a living in difficult circumstances. Their very existence depends upon old-fashioned Sunday morning street markets. In its final form, the Bill largely protects their interests. The local authority concerned will have to consider all conditions, and although I should have liked the appropriate Clause to have been stronger, my criticism in that respect has been largely met.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the danger of causing trouble between Jewish traders and non-Jewish traders. Clause 5 rightly provided that Sunday trading should be allowed to Jewish street traders and business people, but if some concession had not been made to the non-Jewish trader, there would have been bitterness and bad blood, and for the first time in London something very near to racial riots. This shows the advantages of the careful consideration of a Bill of this kind in Committee, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was able to meet that point of view. I would remind the critics of that part of the Bill which makes concessions to these interests, that we have now established for all concerned one day's rest in seven, and that is a great step forward. If this Bill did nothing else—it certainly did not do it in its original form—we should have done good service in establishing that principle in the interests of all the people who have to struggle and work hard for a living in the important industry of shop-keeping.

I must congratulate the hon. Member who has been responsible for the work on this Bill and for bringing it through its dangerous stages, but in doing that I should like to make my position clear to the House. I believe that this is the most obnoxious form of legislation we can possibly have. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) seemed to deplore the fact that. more rigid regulations were not included in the Bill.

On the contrary.

He threw a sop to the hon. Member because certain local conditions have been recognised, and he expressed some pleasure that the seaside resorts had been put, in certain circumstances, in a different category from those places which were not seaside resorts, but he deplored the fact that the Bill did riot compel trams to stop running.

On the contrary, I reminded the House that it did nothing of the kind, and that for that reason it was a good Bill, and that there was elasticity.

I am very glad to have any misunderstanding as to what the hon. Member had said removed. I do not wish to misrepresent him. I thought that I detected a note of regret that further steps had riot been taken under the Bill to deal with all the difficulties that arise on a Sunday. I consider that the Bill in many ways is contrary to the very best and highest traditions of legislation in this country. It is true that Sunday trading has been expanding, and it might be argued that that expansion has been brought about by the growth of public demand. He would be a brave man who would be able to differentiate and to analyse the situation as we find it to-day, and be able to say whether that public demand has necessitated the opening of certain forms of trading establishments, or whether the fact that those trading establishments have been opened has created the public demand.

If we wish to stop Sunday trading and to maintain the British Sunday—and I believe that that is w oat we all in our heart of hearts want to do—we had best bring that desirable result about by concentrating upon educating public opinion. It is not entirely for us as politicians to take the necessary steps to educate that opinion. I submit that public opinion in that regard, and for the use to which the day of Sunday can be put, and the uses to which the day of Sunday cannot or should not be put, rests very largely upon the churches, the chapels and the pulpits which exist in this country. Very far from desiring to make Sunday the type of day in which I was brought up North of the Border—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shame !"] The hon. Member says "Shame." Let me depict to him the sort of atmosphere which existed when I was taken to visit my grandparents, when the local livestock which lived in the house was put under green baize covers, and no form of literature was allowed to be seen lying about the house if it had the least taint of being a novel or could be considered to be of an amusing character, and the only books which were allowed to appear had to be of a highly religious nature. I would not for one moment attempt to impose a Sunday of that sort upon the British people either North or South of the Border, yet I believe that it is to our interest as a people to maintain a Sunday which is not only a day of rest from organised labour within factories and in other centres of occupation, but a day essentially different from any other day in the week. But that difference must be introduced rather from the pulpit than from the Floor of this House.

On a point of Order. Can you inform us, Mr. Speaker, whether the speech which the hon. Member is delivering has anything to do with the Third Reading of this Bill?

The hon. Member must relate his speech to the Bill.

I apologise for having wandered from the rigid path of order. I had no intention to embarrass the passage of the Bill in any way, and I am on my feet, not in an attempt to talk the Bill out, but because I felt it to be my duty to speak. I have attempted to keep within the bounds of Order, but I must admit that my knowledge on these questions is limited by the small amount of time that I have had the honour to be a member of the House.

In conclusion, may I say that I recognise that the Amendments that have been made, sometimes with the help of, and sometimes in despite of, the argument of the hon. Member who is responsible for the handling of the Bill—Amendments that meet the requirements of such a town as Weston-super-Mare and such a place as the Cheddar Gorge, both of which places are the centres, focal points and magnets of public attention in my constituency—have made the situation easier for me. The Amendments that have been made meet some of the difficulties that might have arisen in those places if the Bill had been passed in its original form. Therefore many of the objections, in a mechanical sense, which I had to the Bill, has been removed, and I feel it to be my duty to support the Third Reading. In doing so, however, I do not for one moment imagine that we are taking any steps to improve the actual British Sunday. I believe that that improvement cannot be brought about by such legislation as this, even amended as it is. I believe that that improvement can only be brought about by an intensive campaign to persuade the people of this country that a true Sunday is something which is very valuable and something worth preserving.

I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, I cannot share the enthusiasm which the promoter of the Bill feels for it. Whether I shall oppose: the Third Reading or not will depend upon the course of the Debate, but I must make one or two observations on the nature of the Bill. I did not get much opportunity in the Second Reading debate. Therefore, I hope that I may, without infringing the Rules of Order, comment briefly on one or two of its principles. I do not think that this House is ever at its best when it is dealing with the question of sabbatarian observance. There is such a conflict of interest in this matter that we reach what I may call the high-water mark of inconsistency and even hypocrisy. The Debates which have taken place on this Measure justify that remark. But whatever else we may differ about on the Bill we shall all agree that there ought to be one day's rest in the week for every worker, in addition to the usual half-day. The point at issue is which day that particular day ought to be. We must face the fact, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) has said, that we have moved a long way indeed from the old conception of a gloomy Sunday, when it was almost a crime to laugh, and a day when no kind of pleasure was looked upon as fit and proper.

That day has gone for good, and those who were brought up in that atmosphere, and I am one, rejoice that it has gone. It is a good thing that in this country games of all sorts can be played—golf, cricket and football—in our public parks on Sunday. There are swiming pools open and charabanc outings for the working classes. The roads are full of the motor cars of the rich and poor—at any rate of the rich. All these enjoyments are going on, and we must face the fact that they will continue to go on. The tendency of the times is for Sunday to be looked upon more and more as a day of pleasure and recreation. What does that logically involve? With all these pleasures going on, whether we like it or not, it means that a. large number of people are compelled to work on Sunday in order to provide for the amenities and pleasure of those who make Sunday a day of rest and enjoyment.

The logical way of facing the situation is not the way proposed in the Bill, by trying to restrict and curb the amenities now being enjoyed. If this House were a logical assembly—it is not—it would say that as these people must inevitably work on Sunday, they must have an alternative week-end, and it would decree that there should be an alternative day to Sunday recognised as the alternative day. For instance, Thursday might easily be the alternative to Sunday, and Wednesday afternoon the half-day closing. Then throughout the country you would have the week-end of Saturday afternoon and Sunday, and for those people who were bound to work on Sunday you would have a week-end of Wednesday afternoon and Thursday. If that were generally adopted, the objections now raised to giving an alternative day to Sunday would disappear. If a large number of people went away on a given day, the necessary recreations and amenities would develop in order to meet their needs. That, really, is the logical alternative to the position with which we are confronted to-day.

I do not know what is the Home Office view on this Measure. We have had some rather ambiguous statements from the Home Office, and. I do not know whether they are prepared to bless or damn the Bill. One of the conditions for approval which the Under-Secretary laid down when he was considering this Bill was that no vexatious restrictions were imposed on the legitimate demands of the public. He laid that down as an essential condition if the Home Office were to approve the Bill. I think hon. Members have only to consider the provisions of the Bill as it exists to-day, after having gone through Committee and Report, to realise that it does contain a very considerable number of vexatious restrictions. Therefore, I find some difficulty in conceiving that the Home Office is going to support the Measure.

I want now to draw the attention of the House to the strange combination of interests which is supporting this Measure. I might almost describe it as an unholy alliance. It is worth while considering who these interests are. This restriction of Sunday trading is supported by the brewers; it is supported by big business, by the multiple shop combines in particular; it is supported by the Co-operative Societies; it is supported by the trade unions; and last, but by no means least, it is supported by the Sabbatarians. For some of these interests and their motives I have a great deal of respect. I have a great deal of respect for the interests of the trade unions and their motives; but I have no respect for the motives of the brewers. This brings me to a point, which I think is pertinent. The promoter of the Bill said in his Second Reading speech that he wanted:

"to secure the family life and liberty of hundreds of thousands our people."

That is a very fine sentiment. He went on to say:

"I feel for the liberty of these shopkeepers. They have the right to a holiday on Sunday, to be able to rest from work on that day and to go out into the parks or into the country on a summer day."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1936; col. 2157–8, Vol. 308.]

I was very interested to hear a Conservative Member proclaim such admirable sentiments, and I felt I would like to know more about the Conservative Member who was expressing feelings which met with so much approval from myself. I turned up the very useful House of Commons Guide published by the "Times" newspaper and read some interesting details about the hon Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). This guide tells me that he has taken a very commendable and active part in the public life of the district; but it goes on to say

"He is a chairman of brewery and hotel companies."

One.

I would hasten to say that that is not any reflection at all upon the hon. Member. It is to his credit if he is a successful man of business, but I would point out to him and to the House that when he stirs our sympathies with pleas for the poor shop workers, we cannot help thinking in a usual way that the barmaids and barmen have to work on Sunday, and we wonder whether his sympathies, which art so keen for the shopkeepers, are equally keen for these workers in the hotels and other places which are connected with the brewery companies. Indeed, cynicism goes to great length in this House. I have heard cynical people suggesting that the more you close other trading establishments on Sundays the better it might be for those hotels and public houses which are open for business on that day! I do not propose to waste much time in dealing with the motives of big business—of the Woolworth's and Marks and Spencer organisations—but we know something about the way in which they treat their employes and the rate of wages they pay. It is notorious that they take the most scrupulous pains to see that none of their workers ever become liable to Surtax. I am not going to waste any time in discussing their motives, but I beg leave to doubt whether the motives of these big combines, in seeking to bring about this Sunday, closing are either humanitarian or ethical.

On the question of Sabbatarians, I am in some difficulty about the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). He has spoken at great length in the Debates in this House, but he has a kind of dual capacity. He is, as we know, a well-known and honoured trade union leader, but we have every reason to suspect that he is also something in the nature of a narrow-minded Sabbatarian.

I would point out to all those people who take this narrow Sabbatarian point of view that in refusing to recognise the changed Sunday of which I spoke earlier, they are acting like mere ostriches. They are refusing to face the facts. They ought to recognise that between now and 50 years or even 30 years ago a vast change has taken place in public opinion in regard to Sunday observance. I spoke of those Sundays of dreadful memory just a few minutes ago—Sundays with the big Bibles under the arm, the long faces, and the Sundays when the parrot was put under a green baize cloth, as my hon. Friend said; the Sundays. of lugubrious voices—those dreary Sundays are finished with, and that fact must be accepted.

There are spots in the country—we have got backwoods in this country as everywhere—where the enlightenment has not got as far as it has elsewhere. In some of the provincial towns Sunday is a most dreary and desolate day. I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is present, and I am told that in some parts of Scotland it is a most depressing day. For the most part, however, throughout the country Sunday is to-day recognised as a day for pleasure and enjoyment. It is impossible to estimate the actual amount of human misery—I speak from experience—which has been inflicted by means of the gloomy Sunday of the past. I do not know whether hon. Members read newspapers. They must have seen recently a story about a song written called "Gloomy Sunday." I have never heard it sung [HON. MEMBERS: "Sing it"] and I do not want to hear it, but I understand it is rather a remark able song. It has expressed in such a graphic way the misery and weariness of Sunday, according to the newspaper reports, that people on hearing it are inclined to commit suicide on the spot. I do not know anything about the author of that song, but I think he must have heard something about the Sundays which are spent in some of our provincial towns and some of the places in Scotland.

I want now to refer to what I consider to be a serious constitutional aspect of this Bill. It is a remarkable fact that there are many points in connection with the Bill which we are leaving to be settled in another place. We refuse to take the decisions ourselves, but we put the responsibility for taking them on the Second Chamber. I cannot remember, in my experience of this House, a Measure in which so many points have been left open for decision by the Second Chamber, and I think this is a grave reflection on this House and a very undesirable development. I suggest that the explanation is either that the Bill has been badly drafted—I am not making any reflections on the hon. Member who introduced it; I know that his time was short—or that the subject itself is far too complicated and intricate to be the subject of a private Member's Bill. Therefore, if we were to have to deal at all with it, it ought to have been brought in by the Home Office. In either case the result with which we are confronted to-day is, in my opinion, deplorable, and reflects no credit on this House.

Finally, let me refer to a point which I made on the Second Reading, when I said—and I maintain it still—that the incidence of this Measure is almost wholly against the pleasures and the amenities of poor people. There is not a single pleasure or amenity of the well-to-do which is affected by this Measure, but there are pleasures and amenities of the poor which are affected by it. Every facility which wealthy people now enjoy they will enjoy after the Bill becomes law, but other pleasures and facilities which the poor people enjoy will be taken away from them when the Bill becomes law. Whether I vote for the Third Reading of the Bill depends on the course of the debate, and I have not yet made up my mind, but—

The hon. Member said that all the enjoyments of the poor would be removed if this Bill became law—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—Well, most or some of them. Will he tell the House exactly what enjoyments he referred to?

I think perhaps it would be unfair to the House if I were to go into great detail, but—

rose—

I think we had better not have any more interruptions.

In fairness to the House, I think I ought not to go into the point raised by the hon. Member opposite, although I could give a number of instances. In conclusion, I have made out a case to show that this is a Bill which presses hardly upon poor people and that it does not deal in a rational and logical way with this problem of Sunday labour. But I am a reasonable man, I try to see things in their proper perspective, and I am not certain that these objections are sufficient to cause me to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. It may be that the good it does, taking it by and large, will outweigh the evils and the difficulties which it creates; yet I cannot help saying, even if in the end I do not vote against the Bill, that it is a patchwork Measure. It is a miserable, illogical and hypocritical compromise and it does not reflect any credit on the House of Commons.

I have been through the whole of the proceedings on this Bill and have followed its progress closely. I am therefore very glad that the House of Commons is nearly ready to give it a Third Reading. Let me deal with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). I have not approached this subject as a Sabbatarian. When I was a youth I had to work every day throughout the year, including Sundays, for a. gentleman who was an ardent Sabbatarian. I have not forgotten that. I have approached this Bill in order to achieve the main object I have in view. It will give 2,500,000 shop assistants and about 750,000 shopkeepers one day's rest in seven, and it will give them that on the day on which they need it most. I cannot understand the arguments of my hon. Friend on that score. I suppose that he is so much opposed to Sunday that he would like us all to work on that day and have our Sabbath on Tuesday. Possibly that would meet his agnostic point of view. The hon. baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that the trams and omnibuses were running on Sunday. The factories, however, are not running on Sunday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Many are !"] Well, there are too many of them working if that is the case. The fact that omnibuses are running and some compositors are working on Sunday has nothing to do with the subject.

If all shop assistants were organised in a trade union, if any man living in this world could have organised them, they would have secured one day's rest without coming to Parliament. They come here because there is no means of getting one day's rest in seven for them except by Act of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch said that Sunday would be a gloomy day. If he turns to the First Schedule of this Bill he will find that everything that trippers and hikers need can he obtained under this Bill. The Measure is less gloomy than he thinks, because he will find that in the Schedule the business of funeral undertaker can be carried on even on Sundays.

I appeal to the House to give the Bill the Third Reading. I thought that conditions in domestic employment were really bad before we started the proceedings on this Bill, but the letters I have since received have opened my eyes to the terrible conditions prevailing in the domestic trades, I have a letter from a man who says he is a watchman and who declares that be has worked every day for 22 years. That is a state of affairs which some of us will not tolerate. Although this Bill may not contain all that we want, yet it is in many respects the best Bill we can get at this juncture, and I trust that all my trade union friends will support it. Whenever a trade union official stands up in public to speak on behalf of his trade union in favour of any reform I take it for granted that he knows what his union wants better than, I do, and I always support him on that principle, and I trust that trade unionists will take the same line here to-day.

I must point out at the beginning that this Bill is very different from the Bill which the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) described a short time ago as the right type of private Member's Bill. He was referring to the Meat Trades Bill which, he said, if I recollect aright, was a simple Bill dealing with a restricted subject. It is no good our pretending that the Bill before us is of that kind. It deals with a very difficult and thorny subject, and it affects directly not merely the great body of retail traders throughout the country, but also the general public. Therefore, the House will perhaps expect from me a statement as to the attitude of the Government towards it. The responsibility of the Government in regard to a private Member's Bill is much more limited in scope than its responsibility for one of its own Measures, and I think it is true to say if hon. Members accept that view, that the responsibility of individual Members of the House in regard to a private Members' Bill is correspondingly greater. The House, therefore, is entitled to guidance as to how far the Bill will achieve the object at which it is aimed, and how far it can be regarded as a workable and watertight Measure.

The general object of the Bill is one with which, as I stated on Second Reading, the Government are in general sympathy. It is to call a halt to the great expansion of Sunday trading which has gone on in most parts of the country and has involved the opening of many shops for the sale of commodities which could be bought equally well on any other day of the week. The present law, as most Members will agree, is antiquated and unenforceable, and the Bill seeks to replace this by a workable Measure more in keeping with modern ideas and requirements which will be enforceable as part of the general shops' legislation which is administered by the local authorities.

The Bill seeks to effect its purpose by laying down a general prohibition of Sunday trading in shops and elsewhere, and then making exceptions to meet the reasonable needs of the public, some of which exceptions are permanent, and some of which are partial and dependent on the will of the local authority with the support of two-thirds of the shops concerned. As I said on Second Reading, I thought that was a principle which would command general agreement in the House and outside, but I did point out that there was likely to be very great disagreement over the details, and I warned the House that the real difficulties would have to be faced in Committee. After the Committee stage and the Report stage I think the House will agree that I did quite right in giving that warning. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) touched on his difficulties in regard to the Bill. Those difficulties have been very great, and I think every Member who is on the Standing Committee—and I am sure the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)—will agree that the burdens which a Bill of this kind places upon a private Member are very great indeed, even only in respect of the physical work involved in collecting and co-ordinating the views of various interests in all parts of the country. For my part I would say, and with greater wholeheartedness than was shown by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, that I think the hon. Member for Lowestoft has shown great wisdom in the conciliatory manner in which he has met the various interests. I think he was fully seized of the fact that if he was to get this Bill it had to be a Bill on which there would be the largest possible measure of general agreement, and he sought all the time to avoid a situation in which the shoe might pinch any substantial body of people.

That was the hon. Member's object. He had those difficulties and they have been intensified by the short time available for consideration of the Bill. After the Second Reading the Bill went straight to a Standing Committee, and I think it is probably true to say that the interests affected had not become fully alive to all the issues that were raised. It is also true that the Report stage followed very soon after the conclusion of the Committee stage. Then we found that while the House was considering the Bill on Report the interests concerned were actually altering their views in the subject we were discussing. That sort of thing makes it extremely difficult for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to a Bill.

There are three main subjects around which our discussions have ranged. First of all, there was the problem of reconciling the desire of traders for the maximum of liberty with the requirements of the general public. Exemptions which are no doubt applicable when it is a question of what time a shop will shut in the evening or on a half-holiday are not strictly applicable to closing on Sundays; the two sets of exemptions are not the same. It does seem, however, after a close consideration of the Bill, that the exemptions go very far to meet in a satisfactory way the reasonable requirements of the public. But there has not been very much time to consider the matter and there are certain cases which call for further consideration. The needs of the seaside and other resorts must be further considered, and on closer examination there are other points on which it will be necessary to make further provision in order to prevent unreasonable interference with the convenience of the public. Then there was the question of assistants. The provisions for the protection of assistants were very rigid and of very wide scope. They have been restricted and several modifications introduced, but, generally speaking, we feel that they secure reasonable protection for the assistants without pressing too hardly on the trader.

Lastly, I come to the problem which took up the greater part of our time in Committee. That was the endeavour to work out a scheme by which the special position of orthodox Jews could be met. That is done in two ways first, by enabling an individual Jewish trader to open until 2 p.m. on Sunday, provided he is closed the whole of Saturday. It has been very much tightened up, and further safeguards have been introduced. I think it would be appreciated by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin that the limitation of trading of Jewish traders to 2 p.m. on Sunday is an im- portant safeguard for which there is no counterpart in the Hairdressers Act.

The second part of the problem is the special position of certain parts of London where there are areas of shops and street markets with a very high proportion of Jewish traders. On that point, the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), voicing those interests, which are largely represented in his constituency, put forward a demand for special consideration for those areas, whose position is unique so far as we know. As a result of a compromise, the proposal was made by which such an area should he a special area, in which the London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London had special powers to give exemptions, not only to Jewish but to Christian traders. The object of the proposal was to prevent feelings of bitterness among those who suddenly found an Act was passed which stopped Christian traders from trading, but allowed Jewish traders to go on.

That Clause was amended in several important respects, and the effect of the Amendment has not been fully realised, even by those upon whose suggestion they were introduced. The Bill, in its amended form, will require to he carefully studied. The Government are disposed to the view that the Bill, as it now stands, will give effect, in a reasonable and workable manner, to the principles approved by the House on Second Reading, and that the House would be justified in voting for the Motion for the Third Reading. At the same time, it is only fair to say that, within the time at our disposal, it has not been possible to give the proposals in the Bill as full an examination as one would like, or to make all the inquiries that ought to be made. There are various points of substance and of drafting which will have to receive further consideration in another place. On that understanding, the Motion for the Third Reading might properly receive the assent of the House.

Does the statement which the Under-Secretary has just made mean that when the Bill leaves us in a few moments and goes to the other place, the Government will be responsible for its passage through another place, or that the Government will simply leave the Bill to sink or swim?

I do not think the House will think that we would be responsible for the Bill. We shall continue to cooperate, in order to make it as workable a Bill as possible.