§ Sir V. HENDERSONI beg to move, in page 6, line 7, after the word "refreshments", to insert the words
(including table waters, sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery, and ice cream).This is really a drafting Amendment. It was always intended that the word "refreshments" in the Schedule should include these various articles, but it has been pointed out that, in view of the definite statement lower down in paragraph (e), referring to these particular articles, it might be held in a Court that the word "refreshments" does not include these things. For the purposes of clear drafting, we think it desirable that those words should be inserted.
§ Mr. MARCHMay I ask whether the word "refreshments" would not cover everything? If it is necessary to insert these things for the sake of clarity, what about tea and coffee?
§ Mr. JOHN JONESAnd what about beer and spirits?
§ Mr. MARCHAre not tea and coffee refreshments? If these things are refreshments so are tea and coffee; and if it be necessary to mention these things it is necessary to include tea and coffee.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONTea and coffee are not mentioned in paragraph (e). It has been suggested that because these details have been set out in paragraph (e) it might be ruled that the word "refreshments" here does not include these things, seeing they have been particularly specified lower down. It is purely a legal point. We are advised that it is desirable to put in these words here. If tea and coffee had been mentioned up above we should have mentioned them here, but as they had not been it was not necessary to mention them here.
§ Mr. J. JONESI am in support of this Bill, but when we are talking about refreshments some of us are entitled to ask why beer and spirits should be excluded. We have a right to be recognised as consumers of spirits; the public use them and want them; and if we are asked to give special privileges as regards other things that we do not want why should we be denied the use of things that we do want?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Bill does not deal with the sale of beer and spirits.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BARR: In page 6, line 23, to leave out the words "and cooked or partly cooked tripe," and to insert instead thereof the words "that is to say, provisions which are sold to the customer hot."
§ Mr. BARRThis Amendment was intended to make clearer the object which, I think, the promoters have in view, and also to limit the pressure there might be on such a shop to deal in other wares. But I do not attach such great importance to it as to trouble the House with it, and therefore, with this short explanation, I do not propose to move it.
§ Mr. STEWARTI beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out paragraph (d).
That is the paragraph which says:—Tobacco or matches on licensed premises during the hours during which intoxicating liquor is permitted by law to be sold on the premises.I am moving the deletion of this paragraph, because I believe that ultimately it will have injurious effects. In every part of the country any person has the right to put up either within or outside his premises an automatic machine for the sale of tobacco or matches, and no objection is taken to the perpetuation of that system; but if we allow public houses to sell tobacco and matches across the counter it will lead to an agitation from tobacconists for the repeal of this Bill. It is grossly unfair that; people whose sole business it is to sell tobacco and other smokers' requisites should be compelled by law, and because of the vote of a, majority, to close at 8 o'clock, while 922 public houses are allowed to sell tobacco and matches so long as they are selling liquor. Look at the anomalies which would arise. On one side of a street in London public houses close at half-past ten, and a public house there must stop the sale of tobacco at that hour, whereas on the other side of the street a public house may be allowed to keep open until 11 o'clock and to continue selling tobacco until that hour.So far as I can remember, only two bodies of persons showed any desire for the sale of tobacco to be permitted in public houses during these later hours. They wore the licensed victuallers in England and the Spirit Merchants' Association in Scotland. They told us there was not a large sale for tobacco, but they wanted the right to sell it because it would be a great conveniences to the public. They said they were inconvenienced by people who came in for a drink, whether of beer or of the wine of my own country, and desired to get cigarettes or something of the sort, and who, when they discovered that the publican could not supply them in the prohibited hours—that is, the tobacconists' prohibited hours—were inclined to create disturbance.
So far from there being any evidence that the general public desire this opportunity I cannot remember a single witness asking for this permission to be granted; and from my own city, where there are a large number of public houses, not one person has approached me asking my support for this proposal. If there is one trade which is alive to its interest when those interests are attacked it is the publican's trade. The publican is always alert to protect what he believes to be his interests, and while there are considerably more than 1,000 public houses in Glasgow, and I have many acquaintances and friends amongst publicans, not one of them ever approached me with the suggestion that it was desirable that they should have this privilege. Surely that shows that there has been no clamant demand for it, and it will be a crime if this House takes this step, which must inevitably lead to a demand for the repeal of the Act. It was stated by the tobacconists' trade that if these privileges were granted to public houses and to theatres there would undoubtedly be a demand on their part to keep open their shops to supply the needs of the public 923 in the same way. What follows? If tobacconists shops are open many of them will employ assistants, and as sure as the shops are open the hours of the assistants will be lengthened. Many tobacconists are open from eight in the morning until 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock at night. I am very much concerned about this matter, because I think the present system is wrong, and it will do much damage to the people whose interests we are seeking to protect by this Bill.
§ Mr. MARCHI beg to second the Amendment.
I do so because, like the Mover, I have had no intimation from any licensed victualler in my Division to support the Clause as it stands. I have received a letter from a retail trader in East India Dock Road as follows:
This Bill is to give power for the sale of tobacco on licensed premises at a time when retail tobacconists are compelled to close by law. That is obviously a great injustice to all retail tobacconists. It is giving them extra business entirely at the expense and to the detriment of ordinary traders.Whenever a person is looking out to open a business he chooses a spot as near as possible to some theatre, music hall, cinema, or a large public-house because he knows that at such spots there is sure to be a large number of people. When a man opens a business he is put to great expense providing the necessary articles, and if he is compelled to close his shop at a certain time I think that is a great hardship if at the same time special privileges are given to some trader next door to sell the very articles which he is prevented from selling during those particular hours. Surely the promoters of this Bill must realise that they are giving an advantage to a section of the people who remain open for other purposes, and this is being done to the detriment of those who get their living by this particular trade alone.
§ Mr. J. JONESI agree with every word which has been uttered by those who have supported this Amendment, but I cannot understand why this should be made a question of setting one set of distributors against another. We were asked during the War to accept certain propositions and Regulations for War purposes, but the War has been over for some time, and yet we find that Wartime legislation is still being enforced 924 against everybody. You can have your cigarettes when you like. I do not smoke myself, so that I have no personal prejudice in this matter, and those who smoke themselves to death will have to face smoke hereafter. I like a glass of beer, and I think I have as much right to have my glass of beer during prohibited hours as you have to smoke cigarettes any time you like.
I would like to see compulsory legislation in this direction. If shops are open too long I think they should be obliged to conform to some Regulations under which shop assistants will not work more than eight hours a day. I can see Pussyfoot in some of these Amendments all the time, and every time I see that I shall protest against it whatever some of my comrades may think about me. If you want to have legislation of a direct character, let us have it direct. The shopkeeper wants to sell cigarettes all the hours God sends, and you are protesting against a publican selling cigarettes. All this kind of legislation by compartments makes me feel tired, and I think we ought to deal with the problem as a whole.
There is no reason why the working conditions of people employed in these shops should not be regulated on a general principle, and that principle should be carried out everywhere. You could place the duty on the local authorities, or you could have special machinery to achieve the same object. Now we are considering piffling propositions like the one under consideration which provides that you cannot buy a cigarette in a public-house, but you must go to a shopkeeper. A shopkeeper is allowed to keep open up to a certain time at night and I object to that. I think the shopkeeper ought to be open as long as the public-house, but he ought to have restrictions placed upon him in regard to the hours of labour of those he employs. This Bill restores certain customs of the people which were taken away from the people for War purposes, but now it is proposed to keep some of those War conditions perpetually in force, and some of us object to that course.
I am not going to vote against this Amendment although I dislike it. What I say is that if questions like those which are dealt with in this kind of legislation 925 are to be adopted as a principle some of us are going to protest. We claim the right to have some liberty in this matter. We buy cigarettes and cigars in this House. I have seen extreme Pussyfoots buying cigarettes in this House after closing time. I do not think we ought to consent to adopt this kind of legislation until we have some understanding that the whole question will be properly debated. I do not ask for these privileges for myself because I do not smoke, but if you are going to tie us down to any watertight compartments, you will not be doing the best thing for the workers, and I am sure a much more satisfactory arrangement could be adopted.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAThe able speech made by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) throws a searchlight on the inadequacy of this Bill, and the impossibility of dealing with this subject by a Measure of this kind. I agree with the common-sense view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Silvertown, that the only satisfactory way of dealing with this subject is by limiting the hours of shop assistants. When legislation of this kind is proposed it is necessary to make a host of exceptions which are illogical and give rise to much dissatisfaction. This Bill is a compromise. We have agreed to these exceptions and we have agreed to allow a British citizen to purchase cigarettes and a box of matches in a public-house on condition that he does not do it on temperance premises. I fully admit that this is quite illogical, but it is a little bit late in the day for the hon. Member to move this Amendment, because we have already passed Clause 3 which allows tobacconists to extend, on application, the hours at which they should remain open, and that extension was given to them as compensation for this particular exception. The Report of the Committee on this point is quite clear. They say on page 15:
We are satisfied that the inability to purchase tobacco and cigarettes after 8 p.m. has been the cause of irritation on the part of the public, and we have recommended elsewhere that the sale of tobacco should be permitted to a later hour in certain places.In other words, we inserted this particular Clause that the hon. Member is trying to delete, in order to remove the 926 irritation of the public, and we then proceeded to say that, in case tobacconists should have a grievance, machinery should be set up whereby they themselves could remain open to a later hour. The whole position is completely illogical, but we have passed a Clause enabling the ordinary tobacconist to remain open longer, and there seems no reason why we should deprive the British citizen of the opportunity of purchasing cigarettes and tobacco on licensed premises. The whole Bill was a question of give and take, and this is one of the matters that we settled in the Committee and that we all agreed upon. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
§ Sir P. GOFFI am afraid I must reject this Amendment for the very simple reason that after very long and careful consideration, the Mackenzie Committee recommended this particular paragraph (d) for the consideration of this House. We have carried out up till now, with a little give and take, nearly all the recommendations of that Committee, and I do not feel that we can go back on this very important recommendation. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) talked about the anomaly of public-houses being closed at 10 on one side of the street, and, on the other side, being closed at 11. He was obviously referring to Oxford Street. These are anomalies which we hope to see adjusted, but they have nothing whatever to do with this Amendment, and my hon. Friends and I are quite clear that this Amendment should be rejected.
§ Sir F. MEYERI want to say only a few words in amplification of what my hon. Friend has just said. I think the opposition are making a mountain out of a molehill. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment and I have had many discussions on this matter. We shall never agree, but I do want to point out to any hon. Member who may have been influenced by his impassioned oration or by letters from tobacconists in the constituencies, that this is not a big or important matter. A large section of the public desires to be able to buy cigarettes and tobacco and sometimes cigars after eight o'clock. I do not think that anyone can deny that. If they do deny it, I can only point to the increasing use of the machines outside shops, increasing month by month and year by 927 year. If there were no demand, these machines would not be in existence and increasing.
§ Mr. STEWARTNo one is objecting to them.
§ 3.0 p.m.
§ Sir F. MEYERWell, the demand is there and the demand is satisfied to a certain extent by the machines outside the shops. If they are allowed to be outside shops, you cannot forbid them being put in public houses and cinemas. The reason they are there is that the shop may close and the assistants go. In a public-house which is open, what difference does it make whether a man goes to a machine or whether he gets his cigarettes across the counter? There is no difference from the point of view of adding labour, but there is the irritation to the man himself that, when he asks for a packet of cigarettes or tobacco, he is told, "You cannot have it; you have to go to the machine," and perhaps he gets a particular brand of cigarettes that he does not like. He certainly cannot get an ounce of tobacco or a cigar. It is not causing a minute of extra work to anyone to supply him while the place is open, and the tobacconists are running after a false hare when they say that it is extra competition. The licensed people who came before us on the Committee said that they were prepared to have it inserted in the Bill that the quantities they sold should be limited to, say, a packet of cigarettes, one cigar or an ounce of tobacco. You could not put that into legislation, but that is how a would work out in practice. I therefore suggest that this House should disregard the Amendment, which seeks to make important what is really an unimportant matter. It is important to remember that the Committee found unanimously, or possibly with two exceptions, that this was a source of irritation to the public.
§ Mr. T. HENDERSONThere is a very serious danger here, inasmuch as a young man who has taken to cigarette smoking may find himself in a position where he has neglected to get his quantity before eight o'clock, and he knows that if he goes into a public-house he may be able to get a supply. I protest against anything that will induce a young man to 928 enter a public-house in any circumstances. If for nothing else than this, we ought to agree to the Amendment.
§ Miss WILKINSONI must ask the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) to realise where he is landing us. If he were not a very intelligent Member I should say that he was about the limit. He said that there is a great public demand that has to be satisfied, and that is why he and others are conducting this campaign. The hon. Member talks about a man not having the trouble to walk from a counter to a machine or not being able to get his particular brand of cigarettes. Surely he knows that, as regards the cheaper brand, such as you get from these machines, it is simply a question of what is the colour on the packet. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am not speaking of the more expensive brands appealing to the super-educated palates of the connoisseurs below the Gangway, but I do suggest that, with the average Virginia cigarettes sold from the tobacco machines, the distinction is so fine that it does not justify setting out something which will end in the tobacco shops being kept open longer. It is not a question of taking five steps from the counter to put sixpence or a shilling into a machine. The fact is that if these machines are not there and tobacco is sold on licensed premises, it opens the door to the agitation for shops to be kept open outside, and we are once again in the vicious circle of keeping shops open. When we hear speeches like that, the hon. Member is reducing the whole of his argument to an absurdity.
§ Mr. VARLEYI hope that this Amendment will be resisted, and, if for no higher reason, for a purely personal one. Previous speakers have said that the demand has been satisfied, but I have not yet discovered a machine that will supply me with my customary brand of tobacco, and I must confess that I have a distaste for cigarettes. I have been able to obtain it in the public-house hitherto, and I have had the feeling all the time that I might possibly come within the purview of officers acting under the instructions of the Home Secretary. I have been wondering, while listening to the arguments in favour of this Amendment, what is the whole pur- 929 pose of the Shops Act. Is it really to cause the maximum amount of inconvenience to the public? Is it to deny them that which they want? Is it to restrict the legitimate profits of anyone? I had the idea, in my simplicity, that it was a method—a left-handed method, truly, but some sort of method—to restrain the avarice of those who, if it were not in existence, would keep their shop assistants all the hours that the day contains. If through the medium of the Shops Act we have secured that reasonable hours shall be granted to shop assistants, it is not right that pettifogging restrictions should be placed upon even one of us, and if, when I go to a public-house after eight o'clock at night for a drink, as I do, and shall continue to do. I am able to obtain a supply
§ of the weed if I find myself short of it, that is not in any sense whatever abrogating what I have considered to be the principle of the Shops Act. The sponsors of this Amendment seem to forget that, so far as public-houses are concerned, the assistants employed in them do get hours off in the middle of the day. I hope that the Amendment will be resisted, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), if it is pressed to a Division I shall vote against it.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes 79.
931| Division No. 220.] | AYES. | [3.8 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Griffith, F. Kingsley | Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Daver) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.) | Perring, Sir William George |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Hamilton, Sir George | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Hanbury, C. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hartington, Marquess of | Radford, E. A. |
| Berry, Sir George | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley) | Richardson, sir P. W. (Sury, Ch'ts'y) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Holt, Captain H. P. | Savery, S. S. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Scott, Rt. Hon. sir Leslie |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Skelton. A. N. |
| Buchan, John | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hume, Sir G. H. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hurd, Percy A. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Cobb. Sir Cyril | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Connolly, M. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Tomlinson, R. P. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lamb, J. O. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Drewe, C. | Long, Major Eric | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Lumley, L. R. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Mcdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Wells, S. R. |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | McLean, Major A. | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Gates, Percy | Margesson, Captain D. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Marriott. Sir J. A. R. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Meyer, Sir Frank | Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak) |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Sir Park Goff and Mr. Brocklebank. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Baker, Walter | Buchanan, G. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock) | Barnes. A. | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Barr, J. | Cape, Thomas |
| Ammon, Charles George | Batey, Joseph | Charleton, H. C. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lansbury, George | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Shinwell, E. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lindley, F. W. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Day, Harry | Lowth, T. | Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley) |
| Dunnico, H. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Snell, Harry |
| Gardner, J. P. | Mackinder, W. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Gosling, Harry | MacLaren, Andrew | Sullivan, J. |
| Graham, Rt. Hon, Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | March, S. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Maxton, James | Viant, S. P. |
| Groves, T. | Montague, Frederick | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Naylor, T. E. | Whiteley, W. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Oliver, George Harold | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hirst, G. H. | Palin, John Henry | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Paling. W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wright, W. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Potts, John S. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Remer, J. R. | |
| Kelly, W. T. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Kennedy, T. | Ritson, J. | Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. James |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Scrymgeour, E. | Stewart. |
| Kirkwood, D. | Scurr, John |
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Sir F. MEYERI do not intend to detain the House for long. I feel that the Bill is of such special importance that, although a large measure of agreement has been come to on many of the principal Clauses, it should not go through without a few words from those who have been responsible to a certain extent for getting it to the stage which it has now reached. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Sir P. Goff), who brought in this Bill, has been good enough to allow me to say a few words in his place, and I very much appreciate his modesty in retiring and allowing me to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes. I think that we can definitely say that to-day we are adding something of value to the Statute Book, something which will give a great deal of pleasure to a great many classes of people in this country. I know perfectly well, and I fully realise, that this Bill, founded as it is on a report which was itself something of a compromise, cannot be satisfactory to everyone. I know that it was attacked by a certain number of leading London journals, and, I expect, by provincial ones too, and that it was stated that the compromise was not likely to be satisfactory to anyone.
I take the opposite point of view. I believe that this is a compromise which will satisfy nearly everyone and leave only a very small minority dissatisfied. It is looked upon, I believe, by the large majority of shopkeepers as a real charter. 932 It puts on the Statute Book, for the first time definitely and not as an annual Measure, subject to annual revision, the Eight o'clock Closure. From that point of view, I think it will be welcomed by hundreds of thousands of shop assistants and hundreds of thousands of shopkeepers. In the second place, it restores to the public in some of the later Clauses and in some of the Schedules, privileges which they have enjoyed from time immemorial in this country and which were taken away from them during the War and which they then consented to gladly, but the absence of which since the War they have felt very considerably. We have been discussing one such subject just now, and I do not wish to refer to it in any detail. I maintain—I have said it before, and I will say it again, perhaps for the last time—that if it had not been for the concessions made in the interests of the general public with regard to purchases they may make after eight o'clock, it would never have been possible to get this general measure of agreement on the Statute Book.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson), who has taken an active part in the discussions, is not in her place, because there are one or two points in her arguments to which I wish to reply. She has ventured to criticise my attitude towards this Bill and some of the arguments I have put forward. I do not resent that at all. One cannot expect every kind of praise. Since the hon. Member was good enough to say some very flattering things about my sartorial equipment in an article in a paper not long ago, I can 933 hardly expect her to give me the same high praise for my logical or intellectual powers. There is one serious point which I want to bring out, and which I could not bring out on any Amendment. It is the allegation that under one of these Clauses, the Clause which maintains for confectioners their present right to remain open until 9.30 on five days a week and until 10 o'clock on the late day, every assistant will be called upon to work over 100 hours in a week. I had not time then to do a little mental arithmetic, or I was not nimble enough to answer, but I have been working it out and I find that even if the facts as stated by hon. Members were accurate and these people began to work at 8.30 in the morning, a very early hour, and they continued to work until 9.30 in the evening for five days a week, and until 10 p.m. on Saturday, and they worked on Sunday until eight o'clock—they are not allowed to work after eight o'clock on Sunday—they would only be working some 78 or 79 hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "91½!"] Hon. Members challenge me. Let me put it this way. A man works in a factory from eight in the morning until 12 noon and then he takes an hour for lunch. He resumes work at one o'clock until five o'clock, amounting in all to eight hours work. Hon. Members, surely, would not say that he had been working for nine hours. Is that disputed?
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERNo.
§ Sir F. MEYERThen may I get on with the rest of my argument?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERLarge numbers of shop assistants have no fixed time for meals.
§ Sir F. MEYERI absolutely deny that. I deny that any employer is so harsh as not to give time for meals.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEI was not allowed time for meals.
§ Sir F. MEYERStatements which are brought forward and may prejudice a decision, ought to be carefully looked into.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) ought to have been a shop assistant.
§ Sir F. MEYERHas the hon. and gallant Member been a shop assistant?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYNo, nor have you.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEI have, and I had to get my meals when I could get them.
§ Sir F. MEYER—[HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!"]—I do not wish to detain the House, but I do not think that a Measure of this kind should go through its Third Reading without some few remarks being made in order that the public may realise that the House has given careful consideration to the Measure, and that a satisfactory compromise has been arrived at.
§ Sir W. PERRING—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]—I only wish to say a few words. After 20 years' work as a shop assistant and a shop-keeper, I am not going to allow the Third Reading of this Bill to pass without expressing satisfaction that we now have some prospect of this Measure being on the Statute Book permanently. In expressing that satisfaction I wish to thank the Home Office for the assistance they have given us, although this is only a private Bill in the ordinary sense of the term. It is almost unique in the history of legislation that so soon after a Departmental report has been presented, we have had legislation, with the prospect of that legislation being placed on the Statute Book. I had the privilege, in common with other hon. Members, of sitting on the Departmental Committee, and also on the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill, and it is a source of great satisfaction to me that the Departmental Committee so carefully examined the whole subject that they were able to make a report which has led so rapidly to legislation.