§ Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "but shall not include a person so employed if he is the only person regularly employed in the shop, and is a member of the family of the occupier of the shop, maintained by him, and dwelling in his house."
§ Mr. GRETTONThis is not the same point as that with which we have just dealt, as I think I can show. It directly affects the Bill with which we are dealing. There is no sense whatsoever in this provision of this Bill if this Amendment is agreed. The only person who is dwelling in the shop who is not subjected to the whole of the provisions of this Bill is the person wholly employed as a domestic servant. Will a domestic servant going into the shop for half-an-hour on any day or at the tea half-hour, to lend a hand constitute himself or herself a shop assistant? But that is not the point I want to press. By leaving these words out the wife of the occupier of the shop becomes a shop assistant. The husband will have to satisfy the inspector under the Clause that he is giving his wife her weekly half-holiday, and he will have to schedule in the shop on which of the days of the week that weekly half-holiday has to be taken. He will have to schedule each of the hours at which are employed any member of the family, whether son, or daughter, or brother, or sister. I foresee, and I think the House will agree, the very greatest difficulty in carrying this out.
The chief difficulty occurs when a shop is connected with the dwelling house where the family lives. How are you to prove that any member of the family who may be scheduled at that particular hour or day for his half-holiday has not been in the shop to lend a hand? Where the husband and 2805 wife, as often happens, work the shop, the husband working out during the day, when the husband comes back in the evening, his wife has a chance then to go out. According to this schedule a wife must have one half-holiday in a week. She must leave the shop precisely at 1.30, whereas at present it may be found that the morning, or for the matter of that any other time, may be most convenient for her to have a change. The inspector comes round and finds perhaps that there has been a broach of the regulations. A policeman is sent for, a summons issued, and a fine, it may be amounting to as much as £10, imposed because the family arrangement has not been worked in accordance with the rigid provisions of this Bill. There is here a most serious and dangerous invasion of the liberty of the family to make its own arrangements, and I must protest against this Amendment being carried. I know that two hon. Members on this side spoke in favour of it, but I took the precaution to protest, and I got a considerable amount of support from hon. Members, who felt that this was going much too far, and that it was an invasion of the rights of the family and ought not to be carried into effect.
I hope the Government will not press this matter. I am sure that they are wrong and that they will find themselves in the greatest difficulty if the provisions of the Bill are put into operation. What is the reason for this? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I feel very strongly upon this point, and I claim the indulgence of hon. Members even at this late hour. The reason is that there is a fear that a family by making mutual arrangements outside the provisions of this Bill may gain some advantage over a shop that employs shop assistants. There will be every desire to find out whether or not families in the position I have indicated are evading this Clause, and one may be sure that there will be someone about who will bring the matter before the authorities, and that the transgressors will be indicted under the provisions of this Bill. The Government are wrong. By pursuing the course they are they will make their Bill unpopular, and I must beg of them not to press this Amendment, but to allow the words to remain in the Bill, as they said they would when it left this House.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI do not want to argue the question except to make one comment on the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He says there 2806 will be great difficulty in practice in dealing with the words, "or persona wholly employed," but these words have been in Act of Parliament for many years, and I do not think any practical difficulty has arisen in the matter. As to the general question, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member, because he is using arguments that originally influenced the Government when they put this exception in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will remember, I think, that the only conditions on which we were allowed to go on with the Bill—very proper conditions considering the lateness of the Session—were that the Bill should be made non-contentious.
§ Mr. IAN MALCOLMThat was an agreement between yourself and the Prime a Minister.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt was the promise we made to the House, and we loyally carried it out. Whenever hon. Gentlemen opposite said any matter was contentious we either straightened it out or dropped it. It was in order to make it non-contentious that my right hon. Friend accepted this Amendment now under discussion, and it went unchallenged except by the hon. Member. He spoke alone against it, and he did not think it worth while to carry his opposition to a Division. In these circumstances we are 5 carrying out a pledge we made that we would submit this Amendment to the House of Lords, and if approved by the House of Lords we would accept it.