SHOPS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT) (Hansard, 30 January 1929)

§ Mr. TAYLOR

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1928. Last year we had a Bill which dealt with the regulation of shop hours. That Bill was confined to the principle of compulsory closing of shops, and did not in any sense cover the question of limiting the hours of shop assistants to a reasonable extent. I am glad to see the Home Secretary in his place because he, more than anybody else, is directly responsible for Parliament having missed an opportunity last year of dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman, with that stubbornness and pride which distinguish him, absolutely refused to allow his own Departmental Committee, even to consider the "pros and cons" of the question of limiting the hours of shop workers. I have ceased to be surprised at anything which the right hon. Gentleman does, but I must confess to a keen sense of disappointment at his attitude on this matter. I am sure that his Leader who, last year, placed the mantle of Joshua upon the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders, will be equally disappointed.

§ Mr. TAYLOR

No, Joshua. If I understand the meaning of "Joshua" aright, it means "deliverer" or "saviour," but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been either a deliverer or a saviour to the tens of thousands of overworked 945 young women employed in the shops of this country. It was due to him that an opportunity was missed of having this question considered. Perhaps the Prime Minister was not thinking of the right hon. Gentleman in the role of Joshua the Israelite, but was thinking more particularly of the right hon. Gentleman in the role of "Joshua the night light." But if the right hon. Gentleman is to be judged by his political fulminations, "Joshua the never right" would be much nearer the mark than Joshua the Israelite.

In 1926 we had a number of inquiries tinder the Trades Boards Act into the distributive trades of this country. Inquiries into the drapery, catering and retail grocery trades indicated that a considerable minority, particularly in the grocery and catering trades were suffering from excessive hours of labour. In the drapery trades no less than 27 per cent. of the males employed, and 12 per cent. of the females employed, were working over 50 hours a week. In the catering trade 44 per cent. of the male workers and 26 per cent. of the females were working over 50 hours a week and 7 per cent. of the females were working over 56 hours a week. In the retail grocery trade 62 per cent. of male workers and 67 per cent. of female workers were working over 50 hours a week and no less than 26 per cent. or one in four of the female employes were working over 54 hours a week. With that evidence before him the right hon. Gentleman might have been more (sympathetic to the representations made to him when he set up the Departmental Committee, but if that evidence were not sufficient to convince him of the necessity for new legislation and a legal limitation of hours, surely the evidence placed before his own Departmental Committee ought to have converted him. That evidence showed hours ranging in some cases as high as 70 per week for female employes and shops open in some cases from 80 to 100 hours a week. At the present time there is no legal limitation of hours of labour except that contained in Section 2 of the Shops Act 1912, under which young persons under the age of 18 are not to be employed for more than 74 hours a week inclusive of meal time, and that contained in the Shops Act of 1913 which restricts hours in the catering trade to not more than 65 inclusive 946 of meal times. I hope in view of the large number of children and young women concerned the House will grant leave for the introduction of the Bill.