SHOPS BILL. (Hansard, 15 December 1911)

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
I only wish to point out to the Under-Secretary that a serious thing has happened, of which I am quite certain he was unaware. The First Lord of the Admiralty circulated a White Paper giving the Bill as it was, and the Bill as it was proposed to be amended. That was in our hands when we came to the Report stage, and we followed it as if it were accurate. It, unfortunately, happens from the avalanche of legislation the Government have let fall that it was inaccurate. We did not know that the Government proposed to alter the authority in London for carrying out the Act of 1904. Under the Act of 1892 the London County Council was the authority. It appointed officers, and it did the inspection. The closing orders under the Act of 1904 were made by the borough councils, and that has been altered, without notice, to the great detriment of the dignity of the councils of the Metropolitan boroughs. They feel it deeply. It is not customary to take powers from important local authorities, such as they are, without notice. Owing to the extraordinary changes it will make in the Bill, which amounted, of course, to an entire renovation, they could not possibly know what was coming. The least which could have been done was to enable Members of this House to know. In the White Paper which we had the change was not notified. It is quite true it was in the Bill as it passed this House, and I am quite certain there is no question of bad faith, but owing to the want of notice and the rush and hurry 2797 in which the thing was done we could not have known it, and the borough councils of London could not have known it, so they are now in the position of losing their powers under the Act of 1904, because they are not given concurrent powers. All that is done is to enable county councils to appoint local subsidiary committees in the boroughs to carry out the Act, but it is not laid down that the borough councils are to have any voice in their election or appointment, nor is it even laid down that any proportion of the members of these committees are to be members of the local bodies. Under these circumstances it seems to me rather an affront to the borough councils, even admitting it was done quite inadvertently, and a strange method of legislation. I think it fair to bring this up, because the Under-Secretary, perhaps, may be able in part to rectify it, and the Amendments may be sent back as amended to the Lords.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY to the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)
The transfer of these powers from the borough councils to the county council was in the Bill as first introduced two years ago. It was in the Bill again as I introduced it last March. All the discussions in the Committee upstairs, in which the hon. Gentleman played an important part, were under the assumption that the transfer would take place. I remember it again and again being explained. It was never challenged in the Committee upstairs, and the Bill came down here with that assumption.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
It was a new Bill.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The same powers remain, in so far as they are left. All that we have done is to cut out powers. The powers as to early closing which remain are exactly what were discussed upstairs. It is true in the White Paper it appeared that that portion of the Bill was cut out. We had to rectify that. We put in an Amendment. It was on the Paper, and the discussion took place last Friday on that assumption.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
Under a misapprehension.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
No. There could not be any misapprehension, because not only was the Amendment on the Paper, but the First Lord of the Admiralty clearly explained on an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Norman 2798 Craig), and seconded by the hon. Member (Mr. Gretton), that there should be powers of delegation, and that the powers of delegation should operate not only outside, but also inside London in the case of Metropolitan boroughs, if desirable, and it was under that promise that we proposed an Amendment, which the Lords have accepted, giving these full powers of delegation. Considering that it was debated and explained last Friday that there was an Amendment on the Paper, that it was not challenged then, that it was in the original Bill as it passed the Committee and was not changed in Committee, I do not think the hon. Member is quite right in saying the borough councils ought to be surprised at the course the House has taken.

§ Captain JESSEL
I asked a question on that very point. I asked whether we were to understand that the borough councils were the authority or the London County Council. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Norman Craig) replied that I need have no anxiety. I admit he was not speaking on behalf of the Government, but, being a member of a learned profession and a King's Counsel. I thought he was accurate in his law. He said I need have no apprehension on the point as it was clearly laid down in the Paper from which he was reading. It was a White Paper. Many of us in this House are also entitled to have a voice in the matter. We were content with the Bill so long as it did not contain this contentious matter, but I am sure the Under-Secretary will not suppose that the borough councils will regard what is proposed as non-contentious. It is an extremely contentious matter, and he should have considered that we object strongly to what is being done. Under these circumstances I think we are entitled to say that there was considerable misapprehension. I do not say it was done purposely, but this is only another illustration of the disadvantage resulting from the rush and hurry going on now in the legislation brought before the House. We have not had the Lords Amendments, and all I can say is that I very much regret what has been done. I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman is to see the Bill in working order, but if the whole of this matter is left to the London County Council, I am afraid it will be a most difficult thing to get an expression of the view of the majority of shopkeepers in London. How is that to be done? What would be regarded as a proper majority? Then there 2799 is the question of boundaries to be considered. The area under the jurisdiction of the London County Council ends where West Ham begins. How could anyone tell what is the opinion of the shopkeepers in that locality if some are in the area administered by the London County Council and others in West Ham? I think the hon. Gentleman should make the provision with respect to delegation more acceptable to those who object to the proposal in the Bill.

§ Mr. T. E. HARVEY
I very much hope the Government will not respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member (Captain Jessel). I am sure that Members who heard the Debate on the Report stage realised perfectly clearly that when the Bill was leaving the House the central authority was to be the London County Council. I am quite certain, if we were to go into the merits and debate the subject, we should have an absolutely convincing case for that proposal. Take the constituencies represented by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. One part of Mile End for certain purposes is in Bethnal Green, and another part is in Stepney. It would be obviously impossible for the Metropolitan borough in one case to apply an early closing order, while the other part of the district was to have different hours, without having an outcry as to the injustice on the part of the shopkeepers. Take the district represented by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Jessel). On one side of the road you have the Metropolitan borough of St. Pancras, and on the other side the borough of Marylebone, while another part is in the borough of Holborn, You have three adjoining boroughs in the same road, and it would be obviously inconvenient for shopkeepers if these different boroughs adopted different closing orders.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
May I remind the House that this is not a new matter. As this Bill was before the Committee upstairs it was a consolidated Bill. It was made quite clear there that in London the authority for all purposes was to be the county council. The powers as to delegation were inserted in the Bill upstairs. I do not want to detain the House by discussing the merits of the question, but I am quite certain that, so far as closing orders are concerned, one of the reasons for making the proposal in the Bill with respect to London is the difficulty which 2800 would arise if particular boroughs were to make closing orders. I think we should be more likely to get satisfactory orders under the Bill as it stands and as it left the Grand Committee.

§ Mr. GRETTON
What has been said requires some short answer. The boundary difficulty must always occur in London. Obviously you cannot have the same weekly half-holiday for Mile End and, say, Kensington. Kensington is a fashionable place, with fashionable shops, where Saturday is obviously the right day for the weekly half-holiday. But Saturday would be most inconvenient for White-chapel or Mile End. There must be differentiation. The shopkeepers themselves vote in their own class in London, and close to suit the necessities of their trade. The Bill provides quite enough elasticity. The county council can no more get over the difficulty of the boundaries than this House can. It is much better to allow these arrangements to be made in the borough area rather than in the vast area over which the county council rules. As to the question being argued upstairs, it was discussed very shortly, and was not strongly pressed.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I do not want to argue the question. It would be impossible now to go back on the decisions that have been made. It would not be fair to those, including many hon. Members, on this side, who are members of the county council, who take a view on the whole for the county council in the matter. Under the Bill the county council has the widest powers of dividing up London into areas, as well as powers of delegation. The matter passed unchallenged, both in this House and upstairs, and we cannot go back on it. The Amendments we are proposing are draft Amendments, except those proposed to meet promises made in the House of Commons. We promised to meet a small point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, saying that all small shops should have a vote on the question of the day of closing. There are two small points to meet the hon. Member for Wiltshire bringing in "sale of work" after "bazaar," and "show" after "exhibition." The third point was very strongly pressed on us by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet and Mile End not to exempt the family from the operation of the Shop Hours Acts, except as my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty suggested from the Schedule of meal time. The fourth point was raised 2801 by the hon. Member for Croydon on a consequential Amendment, when we altered the tea-time from twenty minutes to thirty minutes, and the last point is the point I have already indicated, made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutland and the Member for the Isle of Thanet in connection with delegation. These are the only points on the English part of the Clause. There are a number of points on the Irish part of the Clause, but these are agreed and carried out according to the powers which are settled.

§ Mr. GRETTON
I do not think the Government can be aware of what they are really doing under the first Sub-section of the new Clause. It is proposed to repeal the provision which is contained in the Shop Hours Act of 1892 providing for the exemption of members of the same family except so far as relates to persons wholly employed as domestic servants. This provision has nothing to do with the Bill before us. It is a question which was never discussed either in this House in Committee upstairs, or on Report. It has never been considered in this House, or, as far as I know, in another place. The Section of the Act of 1892 is as follows:— Nothing in this Act shall apply to a shop where the only persons employed are members of the same family, dwelling in the building of which the shop forms part, or to which the shop is attached, or to members of the employer's family so dwelling, or to any person wholly employed as a domestic servant. 7.0 P.M.
Under Section 3 of the Act of 1892 there are the usual powers of inspection, fines, schedules, and so forth. What are the Government doing? They are invading the right of the family to make mutual arrangements for the working of the shop, and requiring the inspector to place a notice in a prominent place with the scheduled times of every one of the children, wife, sister, or anyone else in the shop. This appears to me to be a most astounding 2802 provision to slip through. I do not think the Government really mean what they propose. I am not dealing with the later Sub-section which was agreed to and carries out a pledge given by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do protest in the strongest terms of which I am capable of to this attempt by a slip in legislation to interfere with the family life of small shop keepers, first of all by an inspector appointed by the local authority and then scheduled times——

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
There are no scheduled times.

§ Mr. GRETTON
There is a provision for a schedule in the Act of 1892.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
With great respect there is not.

§ Mr. GRETTON
If I am wrong on this point I should like to say that there has been very little time to look up the matter. This Bill only passed through the other place about noon to-day, and this proposal is entirely new. However, after an inspector there comes the policeman and a summons to the occupier, who has to appear before the police-court, and is liable to a fine of £1 for every person in respect of whom he is summoned. The assumption is that the family are going to treat each other unjustly and to grind some into a state of slavery. I protest against any such assumption. It has always been, and ought to be, assumed that the family are each other's best friends, and are going to treat each other fairly and make the best of the lives they have to lead. To say that an inspector or policeman or magistrate is to interfere with them is an outrage upon that liberty which every subject in this country ought to enjoy. I hope the Government will withdraw this Sub-section.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
This Sub-section was introduced to meet a promise made on the Report stage.

§ Mr. GRETTON
No.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I say it was introduced for that purpose, and as far as I know, it carries out the wishes of the House as they were then expressed. It is perfectly true that the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton), in the Debate, took exception to it.

§ Mr. GRETTON
I especially guarded myself on that point. The point on which I spoke comes at a, later stage, where the 2803 Government propose to leave out words which were then printed in the Bill. These words deal with an entirely different subject, and have nothing to do with the half-holiday and the meal times. They repeal a Section in a previous Act of Parliament, which is in no way involved in this Bill.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
It is merely a matter of carrying out a promise——

§ Mr. GRETTON
Oh, no.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The hon. Member is not very courteous. If he will refer to the Bill he will see it stated, "This Act may be cited as the Shop Hours Act, 1911, and the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904, shall be construed as one with this Act." Therefore it is carrying out the promise which we made to the House, and about which, personally, I was not very enthusiastic, but which was the unanimous wish of the House——

§ Mr. GRETTON
No.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
That, except in connection with the Schedule of meal times, members of the family should be put in exactly the same position as employés who are not members of the family. Not only is that so, but the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Norman Craig) definitely referred to this exemption in the Act of 1892. He said:— I am aware that in the Act of 1892 an exemption was made of members of the family in the case of young persons, and the only persons who are sweated under that Act are members of the employer's family and the servants. That is no reason why that provision should be repeated now."—[OFFCCIAI, REPORT, 4th December, 1911, col. 1550.] The appeal, very strongly worded, came from both sides of the House, that a member of the family employed in the shop should be put in exactly the same position as if he were not a member of the family. Then my right hon. Friend said that he was willing to accept the decision of the House on that, except that he could not have in small shops a schedule put up, and the House agreed that that should not be done. The hon. Member for Rutland is perfectly wrong in saying that the Act of 1892 implies the posting up of schedules applying to members of a family. The only condition in the Act of 1892 is that a young person under eighteen should not be worked more than seventy-four hours a week, and the only notice that has to be put up is a notice that "in this shop no young person shall be worked more than seventy-four hours a week." 2804 There is nothing to do with schedule times at all. We believe we were carrying out the wishes of the House as expressed when we said that young persons should not be employed more than seventy-four hours a week just as much if they were members of the family as if they were not. It was solely with a desire to carry out what we thought were the wishes of the House that this Amendment was submitted to the House of Lords and carried there without opposition.