SHOP HOURS BILL. (Hansard, 23 June 1892)

§ *LORD KNUTSFORD
My Lords, I shall not have to detain your Lordships many minutes in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, because the provisions of it are, with one exception, identical with the provisions of the Act passed in 1886 for three years, and which has been continued up to the present time. That Act was passed after the subject of shop labour had been most carefully investigated by a very strong Select Committee. The exception to which I referred is the 1805 insertion of Clause 8, which provides for the appointment of Inspectors. The Bill as originally introduced into the House of Commons this year included women, and also a clause for inspection. Upon the question of the inclusion of women in the Bill, there was a considerable discussion in the other House, and the Bill was read a second time upon the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The Select Committee, who took evidence, and went thoroughly into the case, cut out the words by which women were introduced, and in fact restored the Bill to the same state as the Act of 1886, except as to the clause for inspection. The Inspection Clause as originally introduced in the House of Commons provided for the appointment of Inspectors by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, following the precedent of the Factories and Workships Act, 1878; but this was altered by the Select Committee, and I think properly altered, and, as your Lordships will see, by Clause 8 the appointment of Inspectors is now vested in the Council of any county or borough; and, in the City of London, in the County Council. I therefore ask your Lordships, as this is a Bill the principle of which has been approved and acted upon ever since 1886, the only difference being from the necessity of giving more effect to that principle by the appointment of Inspectors, to give the Bill a Second Reading.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
As my noble Friend is in charge of the Bill, I will ask him a question which I should naturally have asked of one of my noble and learned Colleagues: namely, whether he will be good enough to explain what is the meaning of Clause 6? I have been endeavouring to bring my intelligence to understand it, and I confess I am unable to do so. Clause 6 says— Where the employer of any young person, as defined in this Act, is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled upon information duly laid before him. What does that mean?

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I think "before" must be intended to be "against." I have been endeavouring to understand it, and that is the only conclusion that I can come to. And I do not understand why all these provisions are repeated.

§ *LORD KNUTSFORD
It is intended to make the Act permanent, and, therefore, it is thought more convenient to re-enact the whole.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
But when one is obliged to look at it again—and we are now asked to pass the Bill—there seems to have been some slip, and it is desirable to put it right if it is to be a permanent Bill. It is nonsense as it stands now. Then Clause 10, I think, needs a little looking into— Nothing in this Act shall apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home, that is to say, are members of the same family there, or to members of the employer's family dwelling in a house to which the shop is attached. I understand the last part of it: that nothing is to apply to members of the employer's family dwelling in a house to which the shop is attached; but, if you look at the former part, nothing is to apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home, that is to say, are members of the same family dwelling there. I suppose the latter part is the definition of being at home. But those, I suppose, need not be the employer's family, if they are all of the same family. Yet those persons are only exempted if they are living in the shop—not if they are living in a house to which the shop is attached.

§ *LORD KNUTSFORD
I have only just had this Bill entrusted to my care. Those two sections have been in full force, and I do not know that any misapprehension has arisen upon them, or any question, since 1886. But as regards Clause 6, it appears to me it means that where the employer of any young person as defined in this Act is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled, upon information duly lodged before the Court—that is what it must mean—to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
That is the meaning, but it must mean that there 1807 is to be an information laid against the person brought before the Court—that the employer shall be entitled to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender, upon information duly laid against him, brought before the Court.

§ LORD THRING
My Lords, I can explain from memory exactly what is intended. This is a clause that has been inserted in a great many of the Factory and Workshops Acts, and it means that if a man is brought up before a Court, and, when he comes up, pleads that the offence was, without his privity and knowledge, committed by one of his under people, the Court may, if it is satisfied that the master was not to blame have that person summoned in his place.

§ LORD KNUTSFORD
This is a clause that was in the Act of 1886, and has been in force ever since; but I think that what the noble and learned Lord opposite suggests will probably meet the case. I will call attention to the further point in Clause 10, which also has been in operation since 1886. I understand it to mean, members of the same family dwelling there, or members of the employers' family dwelling in a house to which the shop is attached.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
But there is the shop.

§ LORD KNUTSFORD
No; there may be a family dwelling there, or there may be members of the employer's family in a house to which the shop is attached.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
But if they are not members of the employer's family, I think the noble Lord will see that they must live in the shop to come within the clause. The truth is that this Act of 1886 was one that received the Royal Assent on the day of the Dissolution in 1886, and no doubt came up to this House without ever being seen.

§ LORD KNUTSFORD
But it has been through two Select Committees in another place, and has received their approval.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
Perhaps it may have a better fate this time, as the Dissolution has not come so rapidly, and the noble Lord may be 1808 able to introduce some Amendment into it.

§ LORD KNUTSFORD
I should not like to lose the Bill.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I can only express my satisfaction that, as these sections have been in force for so many years, they have not come before me in my judicial capacity.

§ LORD KNUTSFORD
No doubt if they had they would have received an excellent interpretation at the noble and learned Lord's hands; but it is something in their favour that they have been in operation during these years, and no doubt has been raised upon them.