HC Deb 08 December 1911 vol 32 cc1868-74

The sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption on or off the premises.

The sale of refreshments, including the business carried on at a railway refreshment room.

The sale of motor, cycle, and air craft accessories to travellers.

The sale of newspapers and periodicals.

The sale of meat, fish, milk, cream, bread, confectionery, fruit, vegetables, flowers, and other articles of a perishable nature.

The sale of tobacco and smokers' requisites.

The business carried on at a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform.

Amendments made: Leave out the word "Third" ["Third Schedule"], and insert instead thereof the word "Second."

Leave out the words "for consumption on or off the premises."

After the word "craft" ["air craft"], insert the words "supplies and."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Mr. CHURCHILL

I beg to move, at the end of Schedule, to insert the words, The sale of medicines and medical and surgical appliances. Retail trade carried on at an exhibition, if the local authority certify that such retail trade is subsidiary or ancillary only to the main purpose of the exhibition."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Mr. C. BATHURST

With regard to the first part, may I ask whether it is clear that this will include all druggists' preparations for the use of animals as well as men, such as drenches for horses and the like? The right hon. Gentleman will realise that in certain cases there is as much necessity for obtaining those on short notice as in the case of sickness and disease amongst human beings.

Mr. CHURCHILL

It would cover medicine for the relief of animals and appliances.

Mr. C. BATHURST

As to the second part, I should like to ask why it is placed in the Schedule, because it clearly ought to come under Clause 15, "Provisions as to trading elsewhere than in shops." This is clearly a case of trade "otherwise than than in shops." Anyone might read that Clause and remain totally ignorant of the fact that a most important exception is to be found buried away in a Schedule at the end of the Act. When we come to consider the actual terms of this provision, it appears to be not sufficiently exclusive in one direction and not sufficiently inclusive in another. It refers only to an exhibition. I do not know quite what the right hon. Gentleman means by an exhibition; it may include an agricultural or horse show. There is a very large trade conducted at the Royal Society's Show, the Bath and West of England Show, and other shows of a similar character. There is a trade going on at the present time at the Fat Stock Show at Islington. In this country we do not call such gatherings exhibitions. In France they would be called expositions, which would include the two expressions. In my opinion, the expression in English parlance generally refers to something of rather a different character, such as the exhibition at Earl's Court.

Mr. CHURCHILL

It will include all exhibitions and shows of that character where there is a principal object of interest, and where a lot of little subsidiary shops or booths are put up all round. We intend that the assistants employed at these shops shall get their half-holiday, but the shops will not have to be closed during the time they are in the exhibition.

Mr. C. BATHURST

That meets one point; but as it may not be quite clear what this means, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to add words making it clear.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I will consider that.

Mr. C. BATHURST

The proposal refers incidentally to another matter. It seems to me that in the case of certain exhibitions—something like the Crystal Palace, which is of a more permanent character—you may defeat the object of this Bill. If persons happen to sell within a building where a permanent exhibition is carried on, you may deprive them of the half-holiday which will be enjoyed by other persons who happen to be employed in separate shops. The Crystal Palace is about as good an instance as I can give. A continuous trade is carried on there, very often until late at night, by persons who, in the ordinary course, might be regarded as shop assistants, and who are on exactly the same footing as shop assistants. Surely they ought not to be deprived of their half-holiday.

Mr. CHURCHILL

They will be fully protected, whether they serve in the Crystal Palace or elsewhere, as assistants. The subsidiary shops in the Crystal Palace will not have to close on the half-holiday, but the assistants will get the half-holiday.

Mr. C. BATHURST

Does that provide for the case of persons who might be conducting a shop outside a permanent exhibition, say, during the morning, and conducting a shop inside the exhibition during the afternoon and evening, possibly every day of the week, until late at night? I am prepared to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that case would be met.

Mr. CHURCHILL

You could not have the Crystal Palace open and all the subsidiary shops closed on one afternoon in the week. If the place is allowed to be open for the purpose of entertainment the subsidiary entertainments ought to be allowed to go on. That is a difficulty inherent in the nature of the case.

Mr. C. BATHURST

If the right hon. Gentleman considers that the case is covered I am perfectly satisfied. The words in the Amendment are "subsidiary or ancillary only to the main purpose of the exhibition." Would that be sufficient in the case of persons who may carry on a trade exhibition for self-advertising purposes? I mean to say if it is only "merely subsidiary or ancillary to" it does not, it seems to me, cover the case where the actual goods for the exhibition of which the show is held, are actually being sold upon the premises. The object of the Act may possibly be defeated by the shop assistants being present in connection with such exhibition for purely trade purposes on every day of the week, without being able to get the holiday which is enjoyed by other persons.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Oh, no, no. The assistants will have the half-holiday, but not the shops.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

Mr. M. BARLOW

I beg to move, at the end of the Schedule, to add the words, The business of retail auctioneers when the premises are open for purposes of exhibition only and not for sales. It is very necessary in the case of auctioneers of high standing who deal in works of art, and who keep open five days of the week, that on occasions the premises should be open on the Saturday for the exhibition of works of art to be subsequently sold.

Mr. CHURCHILL

If the hon. Member looks at Clause 9 he will see that provision is made for this point. It says, Every shop shall, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be closed for the serving of customers not later than one o'clock in the afternoon on one weekday in every week. The point is fully covered by that. There is no objection to a person leaving the door of his shop open. That is not violating a provision of this Act. The only question is that the door shall not be open for the purpose of serving a customer; if not there will be no offence.

Mr. M. BARLOW

That slightly meets my case, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter from another point of view. Suppose the shop is open for an exhibition of works of art on the Saturday and people come in and see them and subsequently buy at the sale on the Monday? I think it is extremely difficult to say that the premises have not been open to serve customers. I should have thought it would have been quite simple for this purpose to have accepted these words which would have qualified the matter; but I do not want to carry it further.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Will the hon. Member allow me to have an opportunity to consider the words before we get to another place. The Bill will come back again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: Leave out Schedules 4 and 5.

At beginning of Bill leave out the word "consolidate" ["consolidate, amend, and extend"].—[Mr. Churchill.]

Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

I think that some words ought to be said from this side of the House to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, and to congratulate the House, on the fact that by its curtailment and abbreviation this is now a very much better Bill than we ever hoped it could be. It has lost a great deal of that which was hopelessly impracticable, and it has gained something which will make it of real use to the community and of real benefit to tradesmen and their assistants. I think that the Home Secretary will agree now that though we may have differed as to means and method, that we were substantially agreed in our aims and purposes. A great number of us did not think it was possible to carry Part I. because it involved a vexatious and harassing interference with every shopkeeper in his work; the keeping of a log and a chart which would have been open to inspection from day to day. That has all gone. I hope the relations between shopkeepers and their assistants will be as good personally as they have hitherto been. In the second place, we have got rid of the Sunday Closing Clauses, which were opposed equally by Sabbatarians and by anti-Sabbatarians. The Jewish community objected on the one hand and the Christian denominations on the other. There never were Clauses so universally condemned in all parts of the community as those relating to Sunday closing or Sunday opening. People say they did not know which object would have been most aided if they had passed into law. Those have gone, and what we do is that instead of tags of time at the fag end of days, we get for the shop assistant a real holiday in the week which they will be able to enjoy by indulgence in sport and recreation such as they choose in the afternoon, even if it be at a distance from their employment or homes. That is a substantial gain. You get a statutory half-holiday for every shop assistant and for every shopkeeper and his family. I believe that is in itself a very great gain, and is much more real than anything which could have been given if we had proceeded under the Bill as it was originally drafted.

I hope, too, we have got rid of the irritation and friction that might have occurred if the Bill had been enacted as it was proposed. I will say this, wishing well to the Bill, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to make the regulations under it as simple and workable as possible. He was a little hard on the local authorities. I have had to carry out the law under the Act of 1904. Its failure was due, to my mind, not so much to any ill-will on the part of the local authorities as to the cumbersomeness of its procedure. He can do great service to the shopkeepers and their assistants if he will make the process under this Bill as simple and workmanlike as possible. It does not, perhaps, rest with the right hon. Gentleman now, but it does with the Under-Secretary and his new chief. It will mean a great deal if everything that has to be done is made clear upon the face of the measure, and it will make the working of the Bill in its manifold details more simple than under the old Act. That is really what was the matter with the old Act and the local authorities were not to blame. It seems to me local authorities are blamed in this House for every sin of omission without any consideration for the complexity of the tasks we impose upon them. We draft our Bills in a faulty manner, cast them to the local authorities, and then say to them, "You do not do your business well." That is not the case. I have served on many local authorities, and can say what mainly deters them is the difficulty of carrying out Acts of Parliament. In this case there is an opportunity with a new Bill before it reaches its final stage of making it easy for the local authorities to work it in accordance with the wishes of the community. I hope the Bill will be accepted by all parties, will be worked by shopkeepers in a spirit of co-operation with those who serve them, and if so a great social gain will accrue far beyond the mere provisions of the measure.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I express my obligation to the hon. Gentleman and to the House generally for the help they have given in passing such portions of the Bill as we have got through to-day. The measure underwent a vigorous process of examination and criticism in the country and in Parliament, with the result that I do admit it would have been difficult to try and carry the Bill substantially in the form that it left the Grand Committee. I cannot pretend that I would not have liked to get a great deal more, but, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, I am grateful to the House for having carried so much of it, and I am confident that those who benefit under it will not be ungrateful to Parliament for what it has done for them.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I join in the congratulations on behalf of my colleague and myself to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has conducted this Bill, especially as regards Ireland, in which the circumstances are very intricate.

Question put, and agreed to.