§ (1) A shop assistant shall not, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be employed about the business of a shop for more than sixty hours (exclusive of meal times) in any week and on one week-day in the week he shall not be employed after one o'clock in the afternoon.
§ (2) Intervals for meals shall be allowed to each shop assistant in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.
§ (3) The occupier of a shop shall fix, within the limits allowed by this Section, and shall specify in a notice in the prescribed form, which must be affixed in the shop,—
- (a) the times at which the employment; and
- (b) where the employment is divided into spells, the times at which the several spells,
§ (4) The provisions of this Section, requiring that a shop assistant shall on one day in the week be not employed after one o'clock in the afternoon, shall not apply to the week preceding a bank holiday if the shop assistant is not employed on the bank holiday, and if on one week-day in the following week in addition to the bank holiday, the employment of the shop assistant ceases not later than one o'clock in the afternoon.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "On at least one week-day in each week."
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "save as otherwise provided by this Act."
§ Amendment proposed: To leave out the words "for more than sixty hours (exclusive of meal times) in any week, and on one week-day in the week he shall not be employed after," and to insert instead thereof the words "after half-past."—[Mr. Churchill.]
§ Mr. HINDSI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "half-past" ["half-past one o'clock"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
In proposing this alteration from 1.30 to 2 o'clock, I am strongly of opinion that two o'clock will best suit the convenience of every class of shopkeper in the country. I know something of the circumstances of trade in London. Pioneers of early closing have always been in favour of closing at two o'clock. There are some parts of England where they close at one o'clock, but generally it would be a mistake to close at one o'clock. It means losing a day, for trade does not often start till eleven o'clock, and because very little is done between that hour and one o'clock, the extra hour till two o'clock is especially valuable. It allows, too, for the stock being rearranged for next day. It will also meet the case of the assistants better than one o'clock.
§ Mr. T. DAVIESI beg to second the Amendment. In Committee upstairs one o'clock was inserted, but we had a promise from the First Lord of the Admiralty that he had an open mind if the House should desire to alter it. Two o'clock would be a great convenience, on account of the number of shops that now close at that hour, and have done so for years, and in London have worked their assistants only from fifty to fifty-five hours per week. It will make no great difference to the assistants, because it will be usually impossible for them to have their mid-day meal till after closing, whether it be one, 1.30, or two o'clock. It should be said, though, there are now large shops in London which close on Saturdays or Thursdays, and where the assistants have their mid-day meal before two o'clock. I hope the First Lord will note this fact. At the present time 40 per cent. of the shops in London are closing at two o'clock, and, therefore, if this Amendment of the right 1792 hon. Gentleman is made you will have different shops in London closing at different hours.
§ Mr. GOULDINGI earnestly hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will stand to his guns. This Bill was subject to a great deal of discussion upstairs, and it was the universal view that this small concession should be given to those people. If we take away this half-hour now the half-holiday will be but very poor comfort indeed. If you close at two o'clock it will be three o'clock before many of the assistants get home. I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will stand by what he has proposed.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI would make a very earnest appeal not only to the Home Secretary but to the House not to accept any Amendment to the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman giving the shop assistants the benefit of early closing. If the half-holiday is not to begin until two o'clock in the afternoon as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goulding) very rightly pointed out the whole day will be practically gone. On the day in which the half-holiday is given to the assistants they have no interval for mid-day meal, and therefore after the shop closes the assistants require to go home and get a meal, and by that time the best part of the free day is practically gone. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment said it would practically throw away the half-holiday as a trading day. I really cannot see that at all. The co-operative society in the Constituency I represent close their shops at twelve o'clock noon on their usual half-holiday. The total hours during which the shops are open during the week are very much below the average prescribed in the Bill, which is sixty hours. I hope, therefore, the House will not accept this Amendment, but will stand by the proposal of the Home Secretary and give the assistants at least this assurance that the half-holiday will be a real one, and a day they can spend as they wish.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYIf the hon. Gentleman opposite goes to a Division I shall certainly support him. I have had a considerable number of letters from shopkeepers in the city pointing out that if half-past one is to be put in instead of two o'clock it means shops will have to be closed at one o'clock in order that the work may be cleared up and things arranged before the assistants go away. If 1793 half-past one is put in instead of two o'clock it practically means the whole of the morning is wasted. Never in my day, when I worked in the city did our business close before two o'clock, and I fail to see why a difference should be made now.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe hon. Baronet has expressed his very strong and well-known views on this matter, but I think the sense of the House is in favour of making this gift a real one. After all, all perishable articles are exempt and are outside the scope of the Bill already, and if there is any inconvenience, which I very much doubt, it will be the same for all—no one will get any advantage over another. I would, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment.
§ Mr. T. DAVIESDoes the half-holiday not apply to shops with perishable articles?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe assistants get the half-holiday.
§ Colonel YATEDo butchers come within it?
§ Mr. CASSELThere is a very strong feeling in favour of two o'clock in London. In other parts of the country the feeling may be different. Even so far as the assistants are concerned they will have their meal before the shop closes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] So I am informed—at any rate, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be better to have some kind of local option. ["No, no."] In cases where both shopkeepers and assistants desire it would be possible to fix an hour.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGI should like to point out this provision does not mean the closing of shops at all. It means the shop assistants get a half-holiday, but the shop is not necessarily shut, although the assistants go.
§ Mr. HINDSAfter the expression of opinion we have heard in various quarters of the House, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add,
- (a) this provision shall not apply to the week preceding a bank or public
1794 holiday or any day of public rejoicing or mourning if the shop assistant is not employed on that day, and if on one week-day in the following week in addition to that day the employment of the shop assistant ceases not later than half-past one o'clock in the afternoon; and - (b) where it is the practice in any shop to allow all shop assistants employed therein a holiday on full pay of not loss than two weeks in every year, and the occupier of the shop has given notice to the local authority of such practice, this provision shall not apply during such part of the year, not exceeding in the aggregate four months, as may be allowed by the local authority and specified in a notice affixed in the shop.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESI beg to move, in paragraph (b) of the proposed Amendment, after the word "assistants" ["allow all shop assistants employed"], to insert the words "in any place where the local authority has suspended under the provisions of Section nine, Sub-section (5), of this Act the obligation imposed by that Section and."
My object is to confine the exemption to those shops which come within Sub-section (5) of Section 9. In that Section it is provided that in the case of health resorts the local authority may suspend the early closing day for four months in the year. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman will allow any shopkeeper to deprive his assistants of the half-day holiday during four months in the year, provided that in return the shopkeeper gives a fortnight's holiday in the year. I do not think that ought to be the basis at all, and there should not be any such bargain. The operation of this provision should be confined to districts where, under the Act, the early closing day has been suspended for four months. My Amendment, with the subsequent one, would provide that this provision should only apply in such districts. Under the proposal now put forward any shopkeeper who gives a fortnight's holiday in the year will be able to deprive his assistants of their weekly half-holiday for sixteen weeks. I think it would be sufficient to confine the provision to the special areas the right hon. Gentleman is going to allow.
§ Mr. T. DAVIESI beg to second the Amendment. I have an Amend 1795 ment down on this question. I think one month would be quite sufficient. I do not think the option should be so open, and I hope I shall in this matter have the support of hon. Members below the Gangway in order to secure for the shop assistant a real weekly half-holiday throughout the year, and not leave out sixteen weeks in the year.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)I think my hon Friend has pointed out what was our intention in dealing with this Sub-section. I think the reference in the Amendment to Section 9 Sub-section (5) might be left out, because it would cause complications. We should be prepared to accept the Amendment in the following form:
In any place where a local authority has suspended the obligation to close shops on the weekly half-holiday, and.
§ Mr. BENTHAMIf this is carried will it preclude the moving of the Amendment to leave out paragraph (b). If it does, I should like to say a word or two upon that point. I am strongly against allowing seaside places to have the privilege of depriving their assistants of seventeen half-holidays a year at those times when they need them most and when they are working the hardest.
Mr. PRICEThese men will be working at the highest possible pressure, and no provision whatever is made for them during that period. It is practically slave driving. I should like to know if the acceptance of this Amendment will not have the effect which I have pointed out.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI understand from those who are supporting this Amendment that in such cases as those mentioned by the hon. Member it would be necessary for the shopkeeper to give a fortnight's holiday. When this question was before the Committee we agreed, although we were not very much in love with the proposal, that it should be incorporated in the Bill, because at that time there was a protection for shop assistants in regard to the total number of hours they should be employed. The circumstances have now changed, and there is not that protection. The only protection now in regard to hours is the half-holiday, and by this proposal you are taking away for four months in the year that holiday just at a time when it would be most appreciated. I do not think 1796 it is necessary to give this privilege for such a long period as four months, because that means June, July, August, and September. In many of the seaside places in the north the season does not extend to four months in the year. It might be possible to make out a case for a shorter period. I certainly cannot support such a proposal as this, which is going to take away from a shop assistant his weekly half-holiday during one-third of the year, I do not think it is necessary to lengthen the period.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESThere is some misapprehension about this, because the Clause, as amended, does not provide that for four months an assistant may be deprived of his half-holiday, but only for such part of that time as the local authority may suspend the provision for an early closing day. It is only while the early closing day is suspended that the assistant may be deprived of his half-holiday. Further, it must be a condition that every shop assistant in the shop gets a fortnight's holiday during the year. This would mean that if an assistant was engaged for a season and the employer wanted to deprive him of his half-holiday he would have to give him a fortnight's holiday. I do not think shopkeepers in watering-places will seek to deprive their assistants of their half-holiday for longer than is absolutely necessary. Where the season is short, the suspension of the half-holiday will be short; and it is only during the suspension that the assistant will be deprived of his holiday.
§ Question, "That the words in any place where the local authority has suspended the obligation to close shops on the weekly half-holiday, and,' be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. SNOWDENIs it possible now to move an Amendment to the Sub-section, as, for instance, to alter four months to one or two months?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe whole of this proposed Amendment is still open to Amendment.
§ Mf. SNOWDENrose to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "four months," and to insert instead thereof the words "six weeks."
§ Mr. GRETTONWill that Amendment cut out the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm)?
§ Mr. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member move?
§ Mr. GRETTONI beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "it is," and to insert instead thereof the words "according to."
The Amendment is for the purpose of securing the elasticity of the Clause in the case of every assistant who is treated in conformity with the general provisions of the Clause as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. It would, as the Clause is drafted, be necessary for every assistant in the shop to have the holidays laid down even although only employed for a short time. There are a very large number of cases where the shop assistant is not employed for the full twelve months; and, whilst there is no desire in any way to escape the obligations of the Clause, there should be some exception relieving the employer of the obligation to give a holiday to any casual shop assistant who comes in for a short time only.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGThis Amendment is really in the interests of the shop assistants. Under the Bill as drafted no assistant can get the benefit of the provision unless all the assistants in the shop get the holiday. The employer therefore will not be induced to give the holiday, because he has to give it to all the assistants, whether regularly employed or not. The effect of the Amendment would be that if, according to the practice of the shop, any individual assistant got the two weeks' holiday in the year, then as regarded that assistant these provisions would operate. At present unless the employer can see his way to make the concession to all the shop assistants, he will have no interest to do anything. It is therefore in the interests of the assistants themselves that some alteration of this sort should be made. It is in the nature of things, especially in holiday resorts, that there are assistants employed in shops for certain periods of the year; and, if this is not to operate, unless those assistants also get two weeks' holiday in the year, the whole impetus for the employer to give the holiday falls to the ground. I hope the House will see its way to make this Amendment.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It is very evident it is not in the interests of the assistants. It would only encourage casual labour. There is not the slightest doubt—there was strong evidence of it 1798 before the Committee—it is necessary to make some kind of exemption. Shop assistants are called upon to work harder in watering-places in certain months of the year, and, unless a large amount of casual labour is employed, there are no means of meeting the pressure except by some sort of suspension of the weekly half-holiday. The conditions by which this class of shop owners can contract out of the universal obligation must, however, imply something substantial on their part in return to the shop assistants, and, if assistans have to give up their half-holiday in the best time of the year, the least we can ask is that a fortnight's holiday on full pay shall be given to all the assistants in the shop and not merely to particular assistants who happen to have been a long time in the same employment. If it is to the interests of the shopkeepers in places like Blackpool to take on casual labour during the summer, that casual labour should not be contracted out of the right of having the half-holiday. The least we should do is to secure it to casual labour.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGLet me point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has entirely mistaken the point of the Amendment. The Amendment says that if the employer gives to all shop assistants a week's or a fortnight's holiday in the year, then this provision will operate. Admittedly you have to have casual labour in busy times. If this is not altered you have to give the casuals a fortnight's holiday in the year before anybody else can get a holiday, and I venture to say that that is not in the interests of either assistants or employers.
§ Question, "That those words stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGI should like to ask if the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon and myself is consequential. It is to insert after "assistants" the word "regularly," so as to put an obligation on the employer to give a fortnight's holiday to all assistants regularly employed. Perhaps I had better move, in the proposed Amendment, after the word "assistants" ["allow all shop assistants"], to insert the word "regularly."
This is a somewhat different point. I want the employer to have some motive to give the fortnight's holiday. I submit he would have none if it is sufficient if he gives it to all people regularly employed. 1799 They will get the best time of the year. Unless you put in some word such as "regularly," you are withdrawing every element of motive from the employer's mind to give any holiday at all.
§ Mr. MALCOLMI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe motive to the shopkeeper to give a fortnight's holiday to everyone is a motive which has been urged upon us by those who represent watering-places and who desire to have this exemption of four months. If they do not want the four months' exemption the whole Clause falls to the ground. They can, under the ordinary arrangement, give weekly half-holidays to everyone, but if you are going to have shop assistants wandering from place to place and always deprived of their half-holiday or their fortnight's pay, because they are casuals, you will develop a state of things which will be very much worse for the shop assistants.
§ Mr. ASHLEYDo I understand that the proposals of the Government meet the views of the Shopkeepers' Associations in such places as Blackpool and other watering-places?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI would not like to commit myself, but, as far as I know, this is an agreed Clause. The terms were accepted in Committee by those who specially spoke for watering-places. They ask for the right of suspension during the summer months, and said they were quite willing to give a regular fortnight's holiday.
§ Question, "That the word 'regularly' be there inserted" put, and negatived.
Mr. M. BARLOWI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "part of" ["during such part of"], and to insert instead thereof the words "number of weeks in." The only point is this. In a good many cases it is clear it will not make any difference to the employé if it is part of the bargain that he is to receive a fortnight's pay or the half-holiday in lieu on a certain number of Saturdays or whatever other day it may be. As the Bill is at present drafted, it appears the four months must be consecutive. It seems to me it will make no difference to the employé if the weeks are not consecutive, and it might facilitate matters from the 1800 point of view of the employer. I think the proposal as to a fortnight's holiday on full pay is admirable, but this seems to be a small point; it will make no difference to the employé, but it will enable the employer to adjust his business. I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
§ Mr. NEWTONI beg to second the Amendment. I think it meets the objection of the hon. Member for Blackpool to a large extent, because it anticipates the possible working of the assistants during the whole week at Easter and other times. Speaking on behalf of seaside towns, I must say I think the proposal is a good one.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIf the hon. Member will substitute the word "parts" for "part," I am quite willing to accept such an Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put, "That the word 'part' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
§ Word "parts" there inserted.
Mr. WALSHI beg to propose, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "four" ["in the aggregate four months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
At these times at such places shop assistants work at very great pressure. Their hours are exceedingly long, and I think there ought to be some limitation of less than four months. Therefore, I propose to substitute "two" for "four."
§ Mr. SNOWDENI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI think it would be much better to stick to the period which was agreed upon after long discussion. I am very apprehensive of making excursions outside that arrangement, and I would recommend the House to adhere to the four months.
§ Mr. T. DAVIESI think two months is quite sufficient. In my opinion the better plan would be to leave this out altogether. It is quite true that these people are very busy for a month or six weeks, and the assistants have to work probably from 8.0 a.m. till 9.0 or 10 p.m. from Monday morning till Saturday night without any half-holiday. 1801 There is no shop anywhere where the shopkeeper cannot afford to give a half-holiday every week. If we cannot get that, surely two months is long enough to give. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to insert "two" instead of "four."
Mr. POINTERI think the whole point is due to a misconception. Apparently hon. Members think that the holiday season at a seaside resort is much longer than it actually is. I remember that in the Grand Committee the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) and myself had a little difference of opinion upon this matter—quite friendly, by the way. He instanced Scarborough, where he said the holiday season ran for three months. I asserted that it did not run for more than two months. A few weeks afterwards I was in Scarborough, and I set inquiries on foot among people who were likely to know. I asked them how long their summer season lasted; was it two months? They said, "No, we have a good season if it lasts six weeks." If the season is six weeks, it seems to me that four months is altogether an unreasonable amount of time to give under the Bill. I hope the House will therefore accept two months.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGIf hon. Gentlemen opposite are sincere in their desire to get this Bill through they will not indulge in discussion of this sort, for it is impossible, if this Bill is to go through, to enter into new matter of this kind. The hon. Member (Mr. Pointer) is absolutely wrong in saying that two months covers the holiday period in many holiday resorts. Two months may cover the height of the season.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGI am quite certain that this Bill will never get to a conclusion if small Amendments of this kind are insisted on.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESI am quite sure that the hon. Members who are asking for this Amendment in the interests of the assistants are wrong. We have here a provision for a fortnight in lieu of fourteen half-days. Although a man may only be employed four months he will get his full fortnight's holiday. If you are going to limit it to eight half-days, I do not think that any employer will exercise the option, and the man will not get the fortnight's holiday in lieu of these eight half-days. Another point is that these assistants, 1802 although they are very busy during the season, are in a much more fortunate position than the other assistants during eight months of the year. They get very much more time for themselves. I am sure hon. Members below the Gangway will be wise in accepting the compromise and not insisting upon the Amendment.
§ Question, "That 'four' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. GRETTONI beg to move, in the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add a new paragraph,
(c) In the case of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, or in respect of any hotel whether so licensed or not, the occupier of a shop may by agreement with any shop assistant sub-situte for the half-holiday prescribed in this Section a holiday of not less than nine consecutive hours to be allowed during some periods on a week-day on which in default of such agreement the assistant would ordinarily be employed about the business of the shop.2.0 P.M.I have to apologise to the House for proposing a manuscript Amendment. The Bill was only in the hands of Members on Wednesday night, and it did not become known to the public until Thursday morning, and I only received this suggested Amendment a few hours before I came to the House. The Amendment incorporates what we have already agreed upon in Clause 6, which the Government are now dropping. It will make the Clause more adaptable to the refreshment trade, including, of course, the sale of intoxicating liquors. That trade is at its greatest pressure at a late hour in the day, and this Amendment will enable those engaged in the business of hotels, tea rooms, refreshment bars, and public-houses to give their assistants their half-holiday at an earlier hour of the day, so that they can return refreshed by fresh air and recreation to finish the business for the concluding hour or two of the day. Those engaged in this industry, not only in the sale of intoxicating liquors, are concerned with the rigid nature of this half-holiday Clause and the extreme difficulty there will be in applying the Clause to their case. The House will agree that the provision of nine hours is not an illiberal one. I think it is a reasonable one. The whole difficulty of applying this Clause is that the pressure in all refreshment trades takes place in two periods of the day: the mid-day 1803 meal and the evening meal, including the supper and the evening refreshments. If you take the assistants away on these occasions you make it almost impossible to carry on the business in a shop where only one or two assistants are employed. Some elasticity is necessary. I beg the House not to look at these cases with the some-what prejudiced view which prevails in some quarters. There is a real necessity of meeting the public convenience in this case. I understand that this Clause will meet the views of a vast number of people in this country. It will also give shop assistants a very reasonable period for a half-holiday. I urged before the Grand Committee that there was a great advantage in giving a shop assistant his half-holiday during the hours of daylight and sunlight, especially in the winter months. The hours of light are worth more for the purposes of holiday and recreation to any one in this country than are the hours of darkness. This Amendment gives an elasticity which is very much in the favour of the shop assistant, for you give him the holiday at a time when he can go forth into the country and get recreation there. I hope that if I have omitted any cogent argument which might have been urged in favour of the Amendment that the House will pardon that omission, and will favourably consider the very urgent case the Amendment deals with.
§ Mr. MALCOLMI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not think it would be conducive to the interests of the Bill if we were to reintroduce the provisions for separate treatment for public-house asistants which, I admit, were necessary in regard to the original sixty hours' limitation, but which are certainly not necessary now and, even when they were necessary, drew me into controversy of quite a different character. We had reached an agreement on the subject of hours and half-holidays of public-house assistants which would have secured them, not one half-holiday a week, but no fewer than thirty-four whole week-day holidays in a year, apart from certain Sunday holidays. This is very much less beneficial to them than the arrangement which has been reached by agreement, and I hope the hon. Gentleman, having agreed to the greater, will not press any opposition which may arise on the less.
§ Amendment negatived.
1804§ Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), leave out the words "within the limits allowed by this Section."
§ After the word "shop" ["must be affixed in the shop"], insert the words "in such manner and at such time as may be prescribed the day of the week on which his shop assistants are not employed after half-past one o'clock, and may fix different days for different shop assistants."—[Mr. Churchill.]
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI beg to move, to leave out,
are to commence and end on the several days of the week, and may fix different times for different shop assistants, but employment shall not be divided into spells unless an interval of at least two hours elapses between the end of one spell and the commencement of the next spell, and the notice shall also specify the total amount of time (if any) allowed for meals in the course of the employment on the several days of the week, and no shop assistant shall, save as hereinafter provided, be employed about the business of the shop except between the times so fixed with respect to him.
- (a) the times at which the employment; and
- (b) where the employment is divided into spells, the times at which the several spells,
(4) The provisions of this Section, requiring that a shop assistant shall on one day in the week be not employed after one o'clock in the afternoon, shall not apply to the week preceding a bank holiday if the shop assistant is not employed on the bank holiday, and if on one week-day in the following week in addition to the bank holiday, the employment of the shop assistant ceases not later than one o'clock in the afternoon.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)This Amendment and the subsequent ones to leave out the Clauses may be taken as one question. The question is, "That the words from the beginning of line 17 down to the end of line 16 on page 8 stand part of the Bill" [part of Clause 1, the whole of Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive, and part of Clause 9.]
§ Sir F. BANBURYDo I understand that my Amendment on Clause 1 cannot be taken?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet should have raised that a moment ago. I suggested that the Amendments should be put in one question.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI did not understand that that would affect this. This is a very important Amendment.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet knows the rules of the House so well that he is aware that on Report stage you do not recognise Clauses as such, and that is the reason I suggested that there was no need to put the separate questions.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is just my point. On Report stage the question that the Clause stand part is not put. It is the custom on Report stage to call the Amendments which are on the Paper, and mine was not called.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat is why I slowly turned over the pages in order that any hon. Member might rise at that moment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMight I be allowed with the consent of the House to move it?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI am sorry I had given the decision of the House to omit the words down to the end of line 16, on page 8.
§ Mr. GRETTONIt appeared to me that the hon. Baronet did interrupt in time before the matter was finally disposed of. In addition this raises one of the most important points of the Bill, and it is really very greatly in the interests of the Bill that it should be considered.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI will allow the hon. Baronet to move.
Mr. POINTERAm I to understand that the hon. Baronet is going back to a point of the Bill that we have passed, because, if so, since the hon. Baronet is so keen himself about points of Order and sticking rigidly and rigorously to the Rules and Standing Orders of the House, it appears to me he is the last person in the world to ask to be excused for any lack of wakefulness he has exhibited.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet was entitled to rise and ask for the Amendment to be saved when I was proceeding to put the question. He will not be prevented from moving. I must put the question in this form, Amendment proposed: "That the words down to the end of line 12 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. POINTERAm I to understand that I it is strictly in order that the hon. Baronet can be allowed to move if the House objects? He is a most watchful person himself, but simply because he has been caught napping once he can set aside the rule of the House.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI do not think that is the point. I was endeavouring to save the time of the Committee by suggesting that if hon. Members did not wish to move their Amendments on the long series of words proposed to be left out that they might permit me to put the proposal in one question. The hon. Baronet, it is true, did not rise as quickly as he might have done. As I took the step of putting the series of Amendments together I think we should not go back upon that now.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI think the point is really one of some substance, and the Government would not wish the hon. Baronet to be ruled out by any technical objection on a point of Order.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move after Sub-section (4), to add,
(5) Provided that in the case of shops for the sale of meat and other perishable goods the hour after which on one day in the week a shop assistant shall not be employed shall be two o'clock in the afternoon.The object of the Amendment is to allow butchers and other traders who have perishable goods to employ their shop assistants up to two o'clock. The reason why they ask this is because it will be impossible for master butchers to dispense with their assistants at one or half-past one on the half-holiday. The period between one and two o'clock is one of the busiest in the day, owing to the fact that a large number of master butchers and their assistants are then supplying food for the mid-day meal. I think the right hon. Gentleman, in an interjection across the floor of the House, said that the butchers were safeguarded. I understood him, perhaps erroneously, to say that he considered traders in perishable goods were not affected. When I look at the second Schedule and the Bill as amended I understand that a butcher will not be compelled to close his shop at any hour on any one particular day, but that he may be compelled to employ other assistants on a particular half-holiday. At the 1807 present moment, according to the Amendment which has been passed, it may be that a large number of shop assistants must leave butchers' shops at half-past one. The butchers ask that they should be allowed to keep their assistants another half-hour, and they found that request on the statement which I believe to be true, that in the interest of the public themselves it is necessary that they should have this half-hour in order to supply food to people who require it, especially in the populous districts of the country. They also point out that generally shop assistants have to groom the horses and put the carts away before leaving. If it is the case that in the country districts people have to obtain food supplies at these shops during the meal hours of the day, then I think the right hon. Gentleman might meet us on this point. Although this is not a large question, it is of considerable importance because it affects the convenience of the country as a whole.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI beg to second the Amendment. I have been approached by a good number of butchers who have asked me to endeavour to see that this right is obtained for them. It seems to me that there is real need for the extra time being given up to two o'clock. It would be a convenience to people to be able to deal in these shops up to two o'clock. That seems to me to be a right which might be safeguarded for the purpose of meeting the comfort and convenience of the public. From the butcher's point of view they do not put this proposal forward for any purpose of their own, but rather to meet the convenience of the public. If the public would act differently the butchers might be able to close their shops at one o'clock, but in view of the practice of customers I think, for the reasons stated by the hon. Baronet, this Amendment should be accepted.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI would gladly do anything in my power to make the Bill as elastic as possible, but I really do not think this would be a wise step for us to take. After all, all the shops where perishable goods are sold are exempt from the half-holiday. They can remain open during the week. It is only in the case of the assistants that we are making this provision. This is all we are securing to them, and it would be a great pity to mar the symmetry and universality of the pro 1808 vision by making this inroad upon it. The inroad is a small one, but it would lead to others, and it would come to be that assistants in every shop where perishable meat was sold would be deprived of the half-holiday. I would appeal to the House to stand by the proposal in the Bill.
§ Mr. GRETTONThe argument used by the right hon. Gentleman is not convincing either to the people who occupy shops of this description, or to the assistants, or to the public who frequent the shops. I have no personal interest in this matter. I have had a large number of letters on this subject pointing out the inconvenience which would arise from this proposal if carried. People come out from factories and work places at one o'clock and get their food supplies. If these shopkeepers are not able to employ a full staff at the hour when there is the greatest pressure of the day, the people in the neighbourhood who require to get food would be put to a great deal of inconvenience, and very great harm would be done to the shops themselves. In considering this question we have every desire to help the shop assistants and to give them the fullest advantage which this Bill is intended to confer. But it should be remembered that the exigencies of business require that people who are earning their living and who require supplies from shops are going to be unduly incommoded, and the shopkeepers themselves would be put to inconvenience in the conduct of their business if the proposal in the Bill is carried out. It will come to this, that a certain amount of business will have to be done elsewhere, and the shop assistants will lose their employment. You will do a considerable amount of damage to a large number of people whom we desire to assist. In the country towns there is a strong case on this point. We are asking very little indeed. We are simply asking that one class of shops shall have a special exception made in order to meet the pressure at a certain hour of the day. We cannot extract this concession from the Government by any process of force, but this is a case above all others where there should be some relaxation of the rigid line.
§ Colonel YATEI desire to support the Amendment in every possible way. I have had a whole sheaf of letters from butchers in Melton Mowbray and the Melton Division requesting, in the interest of the working people there, that this extra half-hour should be allowed.
§ Mr. MALCOLMI would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment. What has happened was really the result of a compromise. The butchers, for whom we all fought very hard upstairs, have really come off under this Bill much better than they had any reason to expect. Now it has come to a question of between half-past one and two o'clock, and I do think that for the purpose of getting on with this Bill we ought to give up that half-hour and get on to more important points.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.