HL Deb 13 July 1899 vol 74 cc666-73

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

LORD RIBBLESDALE

My Lords, I rise to move that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the scope of the Bill to Scotland I think it will be convenient that I should explain, at the time of moving the Instruction, the general reasons why I intend to move the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper, and which I shall submit to your Lordships when the House is in Committee. I feel certain, from what he said in the course of his speech, that my Instruction will have the sympathy of the noble Duke who moved and carried the Second Reading of this Bill the other night. It will be within your Lordships' recollection that on the 4th of May a similar Bill, applying to Scotland only, was lost in this House. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill on Tuesday (Lord Shand) also moved the rejection of the Bill applying only to Scotland, and he did so on the ground that England and Ireland were excluded from it. That was also the ground of objection taken by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government. I hope the Amendments I shall move presently will contrive a double debt to pay. They will, I believe, relieve this Bill of any possible imputation of having been introduced with a view to exceptional treatment for England and Ireland to the exclusion of Scotland, and, at the same time, will admit Scotland to the advantages which we conceive will follow the passage of this Bill. Therefore, I beg to move the Instruction which stands in my name

Moved— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the scope of the Bill to Scotland."—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, the Instruction which has been moved by the noble Lord is to include Scotland within the scope of this Bill, and, as has been stated, your Lordships have already unanimously rejected, without a Division, a Bill of this kind applying to Scotland. My noble friend said the reason why the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Shand) opposed the former Bill was, that Scotland was being treated in an exceptional manner, and he implied that that was really the only ground of argument against the Scotch Bill. That was only part of the argument. I think a strong part of the noble Marquess's argument was that this legislation, if sanctioned, would eventually find its way into your Lordships' houses, and that you would have inspectors looking after your housemaids. We have many Scotch Peers in this House, and I think it is very strange that no Scotch Peer should have moved this Instruction, which strictly affects Scotland, but that it should have been left to a humanitarian Yorkshireman to come to the protection of the maids in Scotland. Your Lordships, no doubt, have excellent reasons for the course you have taken with reference to this kind of legislation. Whether it comes in one form or another, the principle is the same. You kicked it out, almost without a word, and without a Division, in a pretty full House five weeks ago, but now, when it comes up in a more concrete form, affecting England and Ireland only, you agree to it by a majority of three to one, with two of the right rev. Prelates at your back supporting it. As one of the right rev. Prelates is a Scotchman, I should have expected something very different from him. I would ask your Lordships to consider whether inconsistent legislation such as this will in any way tend to raise the character of your Lordships' House as a deliberative body on whom the country can rely. I leave it to the consciences of noble Lords to answer that question. I merely wish to enter my protest, in the strongest possible terms, against this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will believe that, notwithstanding my opposition to the Bill, I have as much compassion for those who suffer as any of the noble Lords who appear to think they have a monopoly of humanity because they go in for this sort of legislation. I protest against this Bill, because I regard it as peddling, hysterical, humanitarian, vote-catching legislation, for which this great Mother of Parliaments was never intended nor devised, and which is calculated to make Parliamentarians of the past turn in their graves.

LORD NORTON

My Lords, before we should be asked to include Scotland within the scope of this Bill, I think we should have some further information as to its provisions. Inspectors are alluded to in the Bill, but there is no provision for the inspectorate nor for its cost. Supposing there are only some 500,000 shops in the United Kingdom to be inspected by these inspectors, their appointment must mean a large increase in the number of civil servants. It may be that when the number and the cost of the inspectors to be appointed is ascertained, Scotland may not agree with the noble Lord who moved this Instruction that it would be an advantage to be included in this Bill, but might regard this as a Bill to be avoided. I therefore think we should have some information as to the cost of these inspectors, and how they are to be employed, before we are called upon to extend the provisions of the Bill to Scotland.

* THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

The question of the appointment of these inspectors was gone into in the other House, and the last clause of the Bill provides that it shall be read and construed as one with the Shop Hours Acts, 1892 to 1895. I am informed that the same inspectors who are appointed under those Acts will look after the provision of seats under this Act, if passed, and that there will consequently be no additional expense thrown upon the country.

THE DUKE OF ABERCORN

The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) has appealed to Scotch Peers with regard to this Instruction. I have the honour to be a Scotch Peer, and I would appeal to the House to accede to the motion of the noble Lord opposite. I regard this as a measure which will prove beneficial to womankind, and I do not see why those benefits should not be extended to Scotland.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

My Lords, I had intended moving an Instruction in the direction of that moved by the noble Lord (Lord Ribblesdale), but he has forestalled me. Seeing that the noble Lord was already in the field, I did not burden the Notice Paper with an Amendment in this direction, but I hope your Lordships will not be under any sense of misgiving as to the reception which this Instruction, if adopted, will meet with in Scotland. This is not a question which has been sprung upon the country, or upon Parliament, in an unexpected way; the movement has been going on, I may say, for the past twenty years. It came under my notice twenty years ago in connection with a pamphlet written by Dr. Ediss, who in forcible language drew attention to the health aspect of the question. It has also been frequently alluded to in Scotland. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government, in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, stated that some of the lady Commissioners in their reports to the Labour Commission spoke as if the question of providing seats for shop assistants was an altogether subordinate and apparently immaterial matter. I think, if the noble Marquess would look again into what he properly described as a bulky volume to which he referred, he will see that there are allusions in it strongly advocating the provision for counter seats for shop assistants. I hold in my hand a semi-official report made by one of the lady Commissioners to whom the noble Marquess referred in terms of just appreciation. I refer to Miss Irwin who, in numerous instances, alludes to the importance of the provision of seats. Under the heading "Provision for Health and Comfort," she says: The provision of some form of seats in shops should be compulsory. As to the feeling in Scotland, I venture to predict that public opinion generally is prepared for this measure. I cannot help thinking that it was more or less an accident that the Seats for Shop Assistants (Scotland) Bill did not pass on the former occasion. Therefore I, for one, welcome the present opportunity of including Scotland in this Bill, and I certainly hope the Instruction will be carried.

EARL COWPER

I, my lords, am also a Scotch Peer, and I am very proud of that fact. Scotchmen in general are supposed by some Englishmen not to be very fond of spending their money, but I think it is a very great slur upon that country to suggest that they would object to being included in this Bill merely on account of the expense which would be incurred in appointing the necessary inspectors. I am sure no one in Scotland would for one moment give any consideration to that matter. A doubt has been expressed as to whether there is any strong feeling in the country on this subject. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) has accused us of having voted for the sake of election purposes. I do not think this House would do anything of the kind, but, if we are likely to catch any votes by it, it looks as if the country were in favour of the Bill. In my opinion, the House of Lords will stand in even a better position with the country than it does now, which is saying a good deal, if it passes this Bill.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

I am a Scotch Peer, my Lords, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that the Instruction which has been moved by the noble Lord opposite has my thorough and entire support.

On Question, agreed to.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee, agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

Clause 1:—

* THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

It has been represented to me that under this clause too much power is given to inspectors with regard to the provision of seats. Under the clause as it stands, inspectors would be able to say to the shopkeeper, "You must put a chair here," or, "You must put a chair there." We think it better to leave the Bill more elastic in this respect. The Bill says that the employer shall provide seats behind the counter and in the show-rooms, or in such other place as an inspector under this Act may direct, for the use of the assistants employed by him. My Amendment proposes to leave out the words "as an inspector under this Act may direct," and insert "as may be conveniently used by the female assistants." This Amendment has been suggested by the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, and I hope your Lordships will adopt it.

Amendment moved— In line 10, to leave out from 'place' to 'for' and insert 'as may be conveniently used by the female assistants.'"—(The Duke of Westminster.)

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

I would like to ask whether there are to be inspectors under this Bill or not?

* THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

Yes.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

What are they to do?

* THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

They are to see that every shop in the United Kingdom has seats, either behind the counter or in the showrooms, or in some other convenient place, for the use of the female assistants.

On Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the clause," agreed to.

* THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

The clause provides that the seats shall be in the proportion of not less than one seat to every two assistants employed in each room. I have an Amendment which provides that the proportion shall be not less than one seat to every three assistants.

Amendment moved— In line 12, to leave out 'two' and insert 'three.'"—(The Duke of Westminster.)

On Question, agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The clause enacts that the employer shall provide seats behind the counter "and" in the show-rooms. I presume the noble Duke means behind the counter "or" in the show-rooms, otherwise he will have a double set of seats.

THE EARL OF MAYO

There are assistants both behind the counter and in the show-rooms. These are two different departments altogether.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:—

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

I should like to know from my noble friend whether, when there is not sufficient room between the counter and the wall for seats to be placed, the shopkeeper will have to take another shop.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

The clause to which the noble Earl refers has been passed.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Then I will raise the point on the Third Reading.

Clause 2, agreed to.

Clause 3:—

LORD RIBBLESDALE

I beg to move an Amendment to this clause consequential upon the Instruction to include Scotland, and to which your Lordships have agreed.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 19, to leave out 'shall extend to England and Ireland only, and.'"—(Lord Ribblesdale.)

* THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)

After the decision of the House the other night with regard to England and Ireland, it is quite clear that Scotland must be inserted.

On Question, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4, amended and agreed to.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 166.) (Title altered to "Seats for Shop Assistants Bill.")

Forward to