CLAUSE 2.—(Special provisions as to confectionery.) (Hansard, 29 June 1928)

§ Mr. STEWART
I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This Amendment emanates from the Glasgow Corporation, and the reason we put it down is the difficulty of administering the Act. We are desirous that people, keeping open ostensibly for the sale of one article, should not be allowed to make that the medium for illicitly supplying other commodities that they are not entitled to supply. That is the 881 desire behind this Amendment, and the evidence given to us on all hands while the Committee was sitting was almost entirely in support of the omission of this Clause. Confectioners selling newspapers, newsagents selling tobacco, fruiterers selling confectionery—all these things are taking place, and in many cases there was only an appearance of supplying the goods that could be supplied after hours; and thus harm was done to the people who were engaged in those trades and who closed at the hours laid down by law. If this Amendment be carried, it will remove an anomaly, simplify administration, and make it easier for the citizens to remain law-abiding.

§ Miss WILKINSON
I beg to second the Amendment. I wish to urge the House to realise what this Clause will mean to the people who work in the sugar confectionery, ice cream and chocolate shops. When we were in Committee on this Bill, the Labour party urged over and over again, but without success, that, if this extension of hours were to be allowed, there should be some Clause limiting the hours of workers in those shops to 48. This Clause as it stands means appallingly long hours for the shop assistants, many of them mere girls. May I call the attention of the House to what it will mean in actual practice. Most of these shops open at 8.30 or 9 o'clock. In some cases in those that open at 8.30, the girls are expected to be there earlier in order to set out the shop, to dust, and to arrange the various commodities; but, even supposing that they go in at 8.30, that means that on five or even six days a week, they can work until 9.30 at night. Many of these chocolate and ice cream shops are open on Sunday, and therefore it means not only five days a week until 9.30 with a sixth day till 10 o'clock, but in many cases a six-day week with a seventh day until 10 o'clock. That means that something like from 90 to 100 hours a week will be worked by the girls in those shops. The only protection that exists at the present time is that hopelessly antiquated Act which provides that young persons under 18 shall not be employed in or about a shop for more than 70 hours a week. It means that girls of 15 to 17 can be employed for 70 hours, and girls who have passed their 18th birthday can be employed from 90 to 100 hours per week. That is what is happen- 882 ing in many large towns, and I ask the House to realise what it means to the health of the girls. They are working in a very confined atmosphere, many of the shops are small, and the air space is little, and the girls have no opportunities for healthful, open-air recreation. I want to appeal to my women colleagues on the other side of the House, and especially to the hon. Member who has so particularly identified herself with increasing the hours of shop life—for what reason I cannot understand, except that she has very little experience.

§ Mrs. PHILIPSON
I have never been in, favour of increasing the hours of shop assistants, but I have been working for many ex-service men and ex-service women who have wanted to fight and work for their individual selves. I understand that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) is speaking on behalf of many girls employed in chocolate factories. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Yes, she said that allowing the shops to keep open longer is forcing many girls in factories to work longer hours.

HON. MEMBERS
No.

§ Miss WILKINSON
The hon. Member's interruption shows the appalling state of muddle-headedness in which she has been from the beginning to the end of our work on this Bill. She only troubled herself while the Committee was sitting to attend two of its meetings, and then she came and showed little idea of what we were talking about. She ought really to have read this Clause very carefully before she took up the attitude she does. I am not talking about girls in chocolate factories; I am concerned about the hours of girls who are working in chocolate, confectionery and ice-cream shops. This Clause, I would remind the hon. Member, extends the hours of girls in those shops. We are not concerned with ex service men and ex-service women, and one must remind the hon. Member that we cannot take steps for a small section without realising the effect it has on the trade as a whole. The effect of the hon. Member's work in this matter, and that of her colleagues, will mean that thousands of girls in the shops up and down the country will work from 90 to 100 hours a week, and I would ask her whether she is prepared to agree to that.
883 We ought really to think about the girls in this matter. We are not talking about highly necessary drugs or medicines or ice or things that are needed when people are suddenly ill. This Clause deals with luxuries, with chocolates, ice-cream and sweets, and nobody will be particularly inconvenienced if they cannot buy these luxuries after eight o'clock on an ordinary day, and nine o'clock on Saturdays. It is only a small, thoughtless section of the public that is demanding these extra hours, and, if they are so thoughtless, selfish, and inconsiderate of the feelings of others, it is time that this House said that, where luxuries of this kind are concerned, they have no right to keep girls working these late hours. Therefore, I am going to appeal both to the Under-Secretary for the Home Department and hon. Members opposite to pass this Amendment to leave out Clause 2, and bring these confectionery and sweet shops under the generally quite long enough hours, the far too long hours, laid down by the Act.

§ Sir F. MEYER
I hope the house will realise that this Amendment goes to the very root of the whole Bill. In the moderate language of the hon. Member who moved it and the hon. Lady who seconded it, it sounded as though this were only a minor matter, and as though the Clause inflicted very great hardships on a number of working girls. But the Clause goes to the root of the Bill. The Bill itself is a compromise. I would remind the House of the genesis of this legislation. It is the outcome of a report by a Committee set up as the result of a petition from a large number of Members of this House asking that more liberty should be given to the public in the purchase of certain luxuries. I admit they are luxuries, but they are luxuries of a kind which are very often wanted by people when they are out enjoying themselves. The petition asked that the public should be allowed to do what they were able to do before this legislation was first brought in during the war, that is to say, to buy tobacco and cigarettes and chocolates when they are out enjoying themselves either in theatres or other places of amusement.
This concession has been given in another Clause of the Bill, and obviously we could not make that concession if we 884 were to take away a concession which already exists and was not given by this Bill; a concession which has existed for some years and allows confectioners to sell their wares from eight to nine-thirty on weekdays and up to ten o'clock on one day in the week. Very clear evidence was presented to the Committee by the confectionery trade that this was a privilege which was very much prized. There was clear evidence that a very large part of the sales of confectionery take place after eight o'clock at night. Percentages were given relating to different districts and different shops. I will not weary the House with the figures given in evidence, but nobody on that Committee will deny that that evidence did prove that in a number of cases a very high percentage of the sales took place in the evening, running up to 30 or 35 per cent.
If the House will look at this matter from a common sense point of view, they will appreciate why that is the case. People buy chocolates and other confectionery very much on the spur of the moment. The sales are very largely chance sales. It is when men and women are out either at the theatre or the cinema, or even strolling up and down the streets on a fine evening, that a very large sale of confectionery takes place. The small confectioners came to us and said: "If you deprive us of the privilege of selling our confectionery during those hours, we shall be deprived of a very large part of our livelihood." The matter was thrashed out at very great length on the Committee, and I do not think I am giving away any secret when I say that if this concession had not been made whereby confectioners should be able to stay open till 9.30 as now—and the concession also about tobacco which we are coming to presently—there would not have been by any means a unanimous report from the Committee. Certainly there would have been a majority and minority report. I cannot tell the House, because I do not know myself, which side would have been in the majority, but I think the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) will agree with me that not only myself and the hon. Member for Berwick (Mrs. Philipson) but a number of other non-Parliamentary Members of the Committee felt very strongly against taking away the confectioners' privilege. There 885 would not have been a unanimous report if we had not embodied that recommendation.
Therefore, I claim that this Clause is an integral part of the Bill, and I say quite distinctly that if you take out Clauses 2 and 3 I shall be against the Bill. This Bill is a compromise. Many of us on this side started with a wish to see more freedom all round for the shopkeeping community. The evidence presented to us in Committee convinced us that although a certain section of the shopkeeping community might like to have extended hours, the large majority of ordinary shops would be satisfied if eight o'clock closing were made a permanent part of the law; but we were equally convinced that there are exceptions. It is all very well to talk about making this Bill a sieve by putting in exemptions here and there, but all legislation is a compromise, and if we are going to make hard-and-fast rules to suit certain sections of the community without giving consideration to the wishes of particular sections who have particular needs then, I say, I shall be against this Bill as a whole. I will give it no further support, and I will ask my hon. Friends who have worked with me to vote against it on Third Reading. We must have this compromise, which is a compromise founded almost word for word on the result of the deliberations of the Committee, in itself a compromise. If we do not get that, I say quite frankly that I do not want the Bill at all, and many of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee agree with me in that view.
The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) made a moving appeal on behalf of workers in the confectionery shops, but I think I can discount some of the effects which that appeal might have on honourable Members by pointing out that the overwhelming majority of confectioners who, at the present time, keep open, say, till 9.30, do not employ assistants. I admit that there are a large number of confectioners who do employ assistants. If you walk round, as I have done, in order to study this question, you find that those shops mostly conform to the ordinary closing hours of the district, whether it be eight o'clock, or seven o'clock, or, in some cases, even six o'clock. The shops which have availed themselves of the privilege given in 1921 are mostly the 886 small shops in outlying districts or in back streets

§ Mr. STEWART
That is not true of Glasgow.

§ Sir F. MEYER
I take it at once from the hon. Member that it is not true of Glasgow. I would not contradict him, because my knowledge of Glasgow is not so considerable as his, which is my misfortune.

§ Mr. MONTAGUE
Are not the youthful members of the shopkeepers' families to be considered? Is it reasonable that young girls who happen to be daughters of the proprietor should be engaged all those hours?

§ Sir F. MEYER
I am afraid that is a matter on which I should require some evidence. Personally, I am not in favour of legislation interfering as between parents and their children [Interruption.] I say that frankly. That has always been my attitude. I am in favour of legislation insisting on children being educated and protected from cruelty, but I am not in favour of legislation interfering as regards how children are employed after they have left school. I think what parents are to do with their children after they leave school is a matter for education, example and teaching, but not one for this House to legislate upon. I repeat that the number of shop assistants employed, as the result of this privilege which they now possess, and which this Amendment seeks to take away, is, in my constituency, London, and other places, very small indeed. I grant the exception in the case of Glasgow, but that seems to me to be a matter which would be dealt with much better by a Measure dealing with the hours of shop assistants. We are dealing in this Clause with a lot of very small shopkeepers, and we should not take away from them a privilege which they have been enjoying all their lives, and which was only temporarily taken away from them in 1916 by a War Measure. These small shopkeepers consider the business done in the evening to be a very important part of their trade, and, although it is true that it is only a chance trade, they say that if you take it away from them you will ruin them. For these reasons, I ask the House to consider this question very carefully before deciding to 887 cut out this Clause. If you delete this Clause, you will vitiate the whole compromise, and the promoters will have to reconsider their position.

§ Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS
I am sure that those who are supporting the Amendment on this side of the House have no desire to minimise the importance of it. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that the Glasgow Corporation supported this Amendment because of difficulties in carrying out the Regulations where there is a mixed business. Of course, we pay great attention to the opinions of local authorities, and rightly so. There is a more important corporation than Glasgow that supports this Amendment, and it is the Edinburgh Corporation; and, when two such distinguished corporations declare themselves anxious that this Amendment should be passed, I think the House should consider the matter very seriously. The hours of labour are of great importance to shop assistants. It has been shown that the hours of labour are not otherwise dealt with, and the only way in which we can ensure that many young girls will not be overworked—many of them are not in a strong condition of health—is to pass this Amendment. I would like to tell the House that chocolates, ice cream, and so on are better for health if they are not taken late at night. Therefore, speaking from a health point of view, I think it is in the interests of the general community that as few chocolates and as little ice cream as possible should be taken after 8 o'clock at night. I think we have now advanced several extra arguments in favour of this Amendment.

§ Sir W. PERRING
I am very anxious that this Clause shall not be thrown out in such a way that we shall run the danger of losing the Bill altogether. I am one of those who signed the report of the Departmental Committee, and I have acted loyally to the compromise which has been referred to. That is why I desire to see this Clause retained in the Bill. I am quite sure that, if hon. Members of the Labour party wish to wreck this Bill altogether, they are very likely to succeed by cutting out Clauses 2 and 3. I feel sure that if this Clause is cut out hon. Members who have other views on this matter will talk 888 this Measure out, and we shall not get the Bill through to-day. I say that as a friend of the small shopkeepers, and as one who has stood for the principle of early closing for over 20 years.
Hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment are pursuing a policy which will break up the compromise arrived at among those interested in the Bill, and, if hon. Members wish to wreck this Bill, they need only to pursue the tactics which they are now adopting of endeavouring to cut out certain paragraphs in the Schedule and certain Clauses. The only result of adopting such a course will be to keep the Debate going until four o'clock, with the result that those of us who have fought for the main principle of this Measure, will see the Bill lost, and it may be a very long time before we get another opportunity of dealing with the questions which are dealt with in this Measure. Hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment have already got seven-eighths of their own way, and I ask them not to pursue a policy which will ruin the chance of passing this Bill simply because they cannot get the other one-eighth. Let us get on with the compromise which has been arrived at between the two conflicting parties and let us place this Bill on the Statute Book.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I want to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) and the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring). The Opposition to this Clause has been based on two very extraordinary arguments, the first being that chocolates and table waters are in themselves bad and that they are injurious to health. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) put forward the amazing argument that chocolates and table waters were bad late at night.

§ Dr. SHIELS
I said chocolates and ice cream.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
According to that argument, all intoxicants are bad late at night, and I do not know what is going to happen if you are going to deprive people of the right to have refreshments because they want to have them late in the evening. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) seems to think that chocolates do a great deal of harm to the British public.

§ Miss WILKINSON
I never said anything of the kind. Far be it from me to suggest that chocolates are harmful to the British public. What I did say was that it was selfish for the British public to want to buy chocolates after eight o'clock at night.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
This Amendment has been moved for the purpose of depriving people of the privilege of enjoying themselves at night in what has always been considered to be a perfectly normal and healthy way. It has been argued that if this Clause remains in the Bill the shop assistants will have to work longer hours. May I point out that this is not a Bill for the limitation of hours of labour, and if hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment will produce a Bill to limit the hours of shop assistants, I am ready to support them. This Bill has been brought forward in order to give the British public an extension of their liberties, and that is the whole object of the Measure.
This Bill would never have been brought before the House had there not been great indignation expressed by the British public, because they are at present deprived of the right to buy chocolates and sweets at night. It was that indignation which caused the Home Secretary to appoint a Committee to consider this question. That Committee has reported, and the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) who sat upon that Committee, agrees with their report. The whole object of the Bill is to allow people to do what, as normal citizens, one would expect them to do in a civilised country. It was found that foreigners were discouraged from coming here, and a great deal of irritation and annoyance was caused to our own people—largely working-class people, because the working-classes consume as much chocolate as the wealthier classes. Had this been a Bill for limiting hours I should have supported it, but the extraordinary thing is that the people who support this Bill will not introduce one for limiting hours. Their object is to stop the public enjoying themselves in the evening. If that were not their object, why do they not come before this House with a Bill to limit the hours of shop assistants, and, having done that, say that the British public can buy what it wants and when it wants. The logical conclusion of the argument of 890 the hen. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough would be that the railways would stop in the evening at eight o'clock.

§ Miss WILKINSON
They work in shifts.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Precisely, and why cannot the shop assistants work in shifts?

§ Miss WILKINSON
I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he has not read the Order Paper. If he is appealing to us to bring in Clauses to limit hours, he will find that that is precisely what we are doing by the Amendments to Clause 6.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
If the hon. Lady is in favour of the shift principle, why does she try to reject the whole Clause, because there would be no necessity for shifts if shops were not allowed to remain open? According to her, all railways, electricity undertakings, and garages; will have to close at eight o'clock. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the House."] Certainly, I wish the House would close at eight o'clock, but hon. Members on the Labour Benches seem to take a delight in keeping the House of Commons up. It is perfectly reasonable that it should be advanced that shop assistants should work in shifts. It is perfectly reasonable that the hours of assistants should be limited to 48. The workers in every other trade have fought for that principle, but the shop assistants do not fight for that principle, and, by asking us to force the closing of shops at a certain hour, they are depriving us of liberties which are our right. Consumers have as much right to be considered as anybody else, providing that the shop assistants are not abused. I will support a Bill for limiting the hours of shop assistants, but I will not support a Bill which rings the curfew bell in England at eight o'clock and brings the life of the community to a standstill and reduces England to a graveyard.

§ Sir V. HENDERSON
Several hon. Members who were Members of the Committee on this question have pointed out, quite rightly, that this Bill, like all really good legislation, is based on a compromise. I would ask the House to consider very carefully before they definitely upset that compromise. I am perfectly certain that, if they do, they will not assist the 891 final passage of this legislation. The hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), in her remarks about this Clause, gave me the impression—though it may not have been so intended—that she regarded this Clause as really something quite new in our legislation. Might I point out that this provision, so far as the first Sub-section of the Clause is concerned, is not a new provision at all? It is in operation now, and it has been in operation for the last seven years. Therefore, we are not attempting to do something in this Bill which will impose upon anybody greater burdens than are in existence at the moment. We are actually, by the second Sub-section, endeavouring to give this particular group of shopkeepers something which they have not at present, and that is the power to close earlier by a simple majority if they wish to do so. Therefore, far be it from anybody to suggest that this Clause is an imposition which did not exist before. The whole Bill is based on a compromise. It is the result of a Committee which sat for a very long time and which, practically speaking, sent in a unanimous report. I maintain that the second Sub-section of this Clause does assist the shopkeepers in the confectionery trade in a way in which they are not assisted now, and that it will be, or may be, of real benefit to them. I hope for these reasons that the House will not delete either this Clause or the one that follows.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
One can understand the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) supporting anything which will allow the shops in Yarmouth to keep open until 10 o'clock at night, especially during the holiday season. Being a Conservative Member, he would not be doing his duty if he did not put that point of view.

§ Sir F. MEYER
I quite agree with what the hon. Member says, but it is not as a Conservative that I do this, but as representing a petition from the Yarmouth shopkeepers.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
All I say is that he would not be doing his duty as the representative of Yarmouth if he did not put that point of view. I can always 892 understand the Tory point of view and the Tory mind, but we really cannot understand the point of view of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) who spoke from the Liberal Benches—the friends of the workers who have always been the supporters of any Measure which would protect the workers. In plain fact, he is supporting a proposal that will allow girl shop assistants to work 100 hours a week, with no Regulation whatever to provide that they shall work less.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
This Bill does not deal with the hours of shop assistants, and there is nothing in the Bill which prevents shop assistants working any number of hours. I am in favour of limiting the hours of assistants, and this Bill makes no provision for doing that.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
Because he is in favour of limiting the hours of assistants, the hon. Member is in favour of them working until 10 o'clock at night! It is because he wants to protect the interests of the shop assistants that he is prepared to vote for a Clause that will allow them to work until 10 o'clock at night, with no Government Regulations as to how long they are allowed to work or the hour at which they start or finish. They can work for 100 hours a week, and there is no Regulation to prevent it, and the hon. Member, as the friend of the workers, is prepared to support a Clause like that. I can understand the Conservative mind. They say definitely what they stand for and we can always understand them, but I really cannot understand the point of view of the hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal Benches. The plain fact is that this Bill will allow our girls and young women to work 100 hours a week. I am against any Bill which allows any young girl to work 100 hours a week without any Regulation to govern the number of hours. My position is plain, and the position of the hon. Member for Yarmouth is plain, but the position of the hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal Benches is absolutely mystifying to me. He would agree to a Bill to regulate hours of labour, but that is not in the Bill. We are not discussing a Bill to regulate hours of labour; we are discussing a Bill to allow shops to keep open until 10 o'clock at night, six days a week, and the hon. Member is prepared to support that Bill. I am not. The hon. Member for Yarmouth 893 said that the majority of the shops did not keep open until 10 at night where they employ assistants. It is too thin for words.

§ Sir F. MEYER
I said that the majority of shops which kept open were shops that did not employ assistants.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
That is what I said.

§ Sir F. MEYER
No, quite different.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
What I meant was that the hon. Member said that the majority of shops which kept open were family businesses which did not keep assistants. Does not the hon. Member realise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), namely, that the daughters of these shopkeepers have to work, and that they do not work on the shift system? The hon. Member must realise that when a family opens a shop some member of that family is at work from the opening of the shop until its closing, whether it be the father, the mother, or sister Jane. The hon. Member knows that as well as I do; but the fact of the matter is that the majority of these confectioners' shops employ assistants, and there is nothing to prevent the employment of those assistants from half-past eight in the morning until 10 o'clock at night.

§ Sir W. PERRING
Nine-thirty; and they also have an early night on Sunday. You can work it out how you like, but you cannot make it 100 hours, or even 80 hours. It is a gross exaggeration; keep to the facts.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
From eight in the morning——

§ Sir W. PERRING
They do not open at eight.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
The hon. Member is concerned with the distributive trade, and he knows that shop assistants do not turn up at the hour of opening, but long before.

§ Sir W. PERRING
Rubbish!

§ Mr. MACKINDER
The hon. Member says it is rubbish——

§ Sir W. PERRING
It is rubbish.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
I should like to stigmatise it by a different name, but I am afraid that I should not be in order 894 if I told the hon. Member exactly what I think he is.

§ Sir W. PERRING
Shop assistants do not come before the shops open.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
I am a member of a union that has some 60,000 shop assistants as members, and we know the conditions under which shop assistants work. The hon. Member knows that the shop assistant has to set his shop out. Does he set it out during the day, especially in the case of a confectioner's shop? They set it out before they open. Do they tidy up during the day? They do not. They do it when the shop is closed. The hon. Member shakes his head. Do they set the shops out during the day, and clean them up during the day?

§ Sir W. PERRING
Yes.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
Do they clean them up when the shop is locked up?

§ Sir W. PERRING
No.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
Oh, they never do it then, but always during the day. I will leave Members of the House to consider who is right and who is wrong. But the hon. Member knows that the normal hour of opening is eight o'clock to half-past; nine o'clock is not the regular hour. My hon. Friend has been working out the figures, and we find that six days at 13 hours, from 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m., and one day at 13½ hours, from 8.30 a.m. to 10 p.m. makes 91½ hours.

§ Sir F. MEYER
They do not work 13 hours on Sunday.

§ Mr. MACKINDER
The hon. Member knows that there is no law to regulate the hours, and the hours for which shop assistants are allowed to work in this country are a scandal. Even young persons are allowed to work in this way, though they must not work more than 70 hours a week. The position is disgraceful. Hon. Members threaten that, if we proceed with this Amendment, they will wreck the Bill, by talking it out. That is very kind of them, and we shall have to remember it. I hope that the House will accept this Amendment, and will show that at all events it considers the lives of our girls. If the House is prepared to pass this Bill exactly as it is, all that we 895 shall have to say to the country is that the House of Commons is making its choice between the pleasure of some people who want to go to the cinemas and theatres and buy their sweets after eight o'clock at night, and the health and lives of our girls who work in the shops. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to vote for the health and conditions of our girls, and to support this Amendment.

§ Mr. RADFORD
I would like to add my appeal to those which have already been made to hon. Members opposite that they should not seek to put into this Bill all that they would like it to contain, or to exclude from it everything that they do not like. I would ask them to remember that at the end of this year, if this Bill should fall to the ground, we shall be faced with the termination of the early closing which has been the law of our country by annual continuations since 1920. This Bill would never have been before us to-day had it not been—I am saying this on my own authority—that the departmental Committee were able to present a unanimous Report. There is a great deal in this Bill that every Member of the Committee did not like, but they agreed on a unanimous Report, with certain small modifications on the part of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), and one or two others. We all agreed to much that we did not like, with a view to securing that unanimity which was necessary, at any rate from the point of view of the Home Office, if our Report was to be translated into law.
I would ask hon. Members to bear that clearly in mind in their attitude towards this Amendment and the following one, because the inclusion of these Clauses was a sine qua non of our securing unanimity. I do not quite know what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) when he spoke about the views of those who sit on the Conservative benches, but I would say that I, at any rate, represent the cause of early closing, and it is quite as dear to my heart as it is to his. It is my privilege to represent in this House the Early Closing Association, which during the last 86 years has done more for early closing than any other organisation in this country.

§ Mrs. PHILIPSON
I am not concerned with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) about my work on the Committee, but about what the general public think, and about the men and women from whom I have received hundreds of letters. I can only say that this is a deliberate attempt on the part of hon. Members opposite to wreck the Bill. This Bill, as several hon. Members have said, is the result of a compromise in the Committee. I fought consistently ail through for the one-man shopkeeper's individual right and freedom, as he pays rates and taxes, and there was no question of my wishing that assistants should be employed for longer hours. I want hon. Members to know that once and for all. I should also like to point out that, when the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough talks about our working girls, she must understand that in our large factories there are very many of our boys and girls employed in making these sweets, and, if you are going to restrict the demand for sweets in the shops by not allowing them to sell after certain hours, you are restricting also the work and wages of the people employed in their manufacture—the very people that we are trying to help.
As has been said by the hon. Member who speaks on behalf of the Early Closing Association—and no one on the opposite benches can deny the work that that Association has done on behalf of the assistants—this compromise had to be made, simply because it had been already decided that the sale of chocolates to the public in theatres and cinemas after certain hours should be allowed, and, as has already been pointed out, it was considered only right to give to the small tobacconist, and other men and women who were trying to make their living as individual shopkeepers, the same right as the big combines who supply the people in the cinemas and theatres. This does not compel anyone to keep open; it simply means that, by a two-thirds majority of the local authority, they will have the right to do what is allowed to be done in the theatres and cinemas.
897 I cannot understand any hon. Member opposite wanting to wreck the Bill, for that is what this Amendment means. The Bill does not go nearly as far as I would like it to go on behalf of our small shopkeepers and the public. Day after day foreigners are coming to this country, and the people in their factories are making chocolates and sending them to our shops, while we have all these restrictions against our own small people who are wanting to get on and make a, living. The Home Secretary is willing and desirous, I feel sure, that this Bill should go through this afternoon, and I do appeal to hon. Members opposite to show a spirit of give-and-take in regard to these small shopkeepers. I can say to the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough quite frankly that no one in their youth worked harder or for longer hours than I did. I was left an orphan very early, and had to support a family, and I spent my time in working, and not in agitating. No one has the right to stand up and say that I have less feeling for our girls and boys and men and women than the hon. Member has.
I am fighting now for the Bill to go through and to give the little shopkeepers the right to open if they want to. They may not want it. If they want to close their shops they can. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to accept this compromise and do a little to help get the Bill through. One hon. Member who has fought consistently for the Early Closing Association is willing to accept it. When I am in the House I work not from the women's or the men's but from the national point of view. I have hundreds of letters from small shopkeepers who want this extension. You might as well say to an agricultural worker: "We will give you a small holding, but directly you get the land and want to become a farmer you are not to be a farmer. We will not allow you to work any longer hours and we will not let you have your freedom and your individual rights." This is a chance to do something really-good, not only for the shopkeeper and the public, but also for the assistant, on whose behalf you say you are working. I ask hon. Members not to wreck the Bill but to let it go through.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I want to make an appeal. I see the hon. Member 898 for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) wishes to move the Closure.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I do not want any Closure. I want to get the thing through. I do not propose to discuss the arguments on either side. Quite obviously the hon. Lady who has just spoken feels strongly, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) also feels very strongly indeed. The Bill is frankly a compromise. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that Clause 1 is worth a very great deal. It takes the whole question of shop assistants' hours out of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill and makes it a charter until the Bill is revoked, which I do not think it ever will be. I know hon. Members opposite do not like Clauses 2 and 3, but the real essence of the Bill from their point of view is Clause 1. That is the Clause they want. I do not think they can get the Bill through without Clauses 2 and 3. I could not appeal to my hon. Friends on this side of the House to let the Bill go through without those Clauses in it. The Under-Secretary has worked in Committee, and the staff of the Home Office has worked for many months, to get an agreed compromise, and it is a matter of great moment to the whole shopkeeping community. It settles many difficult questions raised by D.O.R.A. in years past and I ask hon Members not to make my course more difficult. I want to get the Bill through and to play fairly and squarely with the House in regard to it. If they persist in moving Amendments which hon. Members on this side cannot possibly accept, they may imperil the Bill. I hope, therefore, they will let this go and let us get the Bill shortly.

§ Mr. STEWART
I rose at the same time that the right hon. Gentleman rose to say I had consulted with the members of the Glasgow Corporation, who are responsible for this Amendment, and they have asked me to withdraw it. Mention has been made of wrecking tactics, and the right hon. Gentleman says the Bill is a compromise, but only a little while ago he left to the free will of the House a Motion which in our opinion was something in the nature of a wrecking Motion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.