SHOPS BILL. (Hansard, 14 December 1911)

§ THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS)
My Lords, this Bill which I have the honour of submitting to your Lordships for Second Reading is only a part of the original and more ambitious legislative proposals which engaged the attention of Parliament in another place this session. In fact, it contains only those clauses, upon which there was general agreement in another place, and with the exception of a few Amendments of a more or less formal and drafting character which it will be necessary to move to give effect to those agreed points, I do not think it presents anything of a character which need engage your Lordships' attention very long. Both Parties are committed to legislation on this subject. The Act of 1892 and the amending Act dealt with the hours of young persons serving in shops, the Act of 1899 provided for seating accommodation for female shop assistants, and the Act of 1909 dealt with the question of early closing. It is, I think, common ground between the two Parties that shop assistants are a class the nature of whose occupation calls for the attention of Parliament, and I do not think it is necessary for me to labour the principle on which this Bill rests, nor to cite any instances to recommend it to your Lordships. Though this Bill is really only a fragment of the larger measure—the limitations of the hours to sixty per week, the Sunday closing provisions, and the seating and ventilation clauses have been dropped—there remain four important provisions which vitally affect the health and leisure of, I believe, about 2,000,000 shop keepers and shop assistants. The first provision, which is to be found in Clause 1, gives to shop assistants one half holiday a week, the holiday beginning at half-past one in the afternoon. The second provision allows intervals for certain meals—this is dealt with in subsection (2) of the first clause and also in the Schedule. Then there is the provision for the closing of shops on one half day in each week, so as to give the shopkeepers themselves the benefit of a half holiday. The fourth provision, which is contained in Clause 3, has the effect of facilitating the early closing movement provided for in the Act of 1904.
1117 I will say one word with regard to the application of these provisions, and in this connection I hope your Lordships will notice the elasticity with which the application of these principles is carred out. Your Lordships will see that by proviso (a) of Clause 1 the provision with regard to the half-holiday is not to apply to the week preceding a bank or public holiday or any day of public rejoicing or mourning if the shop assistant is not employed on that day and if on one week day in the following week in addition to that day the employment of the shop assistant ceases not later than half-past one o'clock in the afternoon. And proviso (b) states that where it is the practice for a shop assistant to enjoy an annual holiday of not less than two weeks on full pay the weekly half-holiday may be cancelled during four months of the year. With regard to meals different intervals are allowed. By the First Schedule in-boarders are given three-quarters of an hour and twenty minutes for dinner and tea respectively, whereas out-boarders have an hour and half-an-hour respectively for those meals.
By Clause 2 you will see that it is left to the local authority, by order, to fix what day the shops shall be closed, and they are permitted to fix either the same day for all shops, or different days for different classes of shops, or different days for different periods of the year. That is a provision the elasticity of which I think is commendable. Then it is further provided that if the half-holiday was fixed for a Saturday the shop keepers may decide upon another day for the half-holiday instead; or if the day fixed is not Saturday, then the shopkeepers may, by reversing it, have Saturday as the half-holiday. Then there is a further provision which allows the shopkeepers to practically contract out of this clause, and it is left to the local authority to decide whether exemption shall be granted either wholly or in part under the provisions of this clause. In order to do that, they have to satisfy themselves that a majority of the shopkeepers are in favour of this exemption. Then subsection (5) extends this exemption to holiday resorts. Moreover, there are a great number of exemptions from the provisions of the half-holiday and from the closing of shops: refreshments, intoxicating liquors, perishable articles, like provisions and tobacco, 1118 motor accessories, and, of course, the Post Office.
Then, coming to the other provisions to which I alluded—that of assisting and facilitating and giving a certain stimulus to the early closing movement—your Lordships will see that by Clause 3 the Secretary of State, on the representation of a local authority or a joint representation from a substantial number of occupiers of shops and shop assistants is entitled to appoint a suitable person to go down into the locality and promote early closing in the district. The fact is, as your Lordships know, that although the Act of 1904 gives power to close shops at an earlier hour than usual, it is very difficult to give effect to the Act. In fact, it appears that there is a great need for someone outside and rather standing above the district, to focus public opinion on the subject, to dispel the local jealousies which may exist, and the mutual distrust which is common enough between shopkeepers who are rivals in the same business. It is thought that the appointment of a person of this kind who can act the part of a conciliator might do a lot to assist in bringing about early closing where, just for the want of sympathy and assistance in bringing them together, very often the early closing movement comes to nothing. He will be empowered to hold an inquiry, and, if he thinks fit, to submit a scheme, and that scheme will be regarded as a prima facie case for the early closing movement.
The Bill applies to Ireland in rather a modified form. The terms of the clause relating to Ireland are no less favourable to shopkeepers and shop assistants there than in England or Scotland, but they are more applicable to local conditions. In fact, early in the session, before the Bill assumed its present shape, an arrangement was come to between the representatives of the liquor trade on the one hand and the assistants serving in licensed premises on the other. That arrangement is satisfactory to both parties, and as it does not place them in a worse position than they would enjoy under the Act it is thought wise to let that arrangement stand. I beg to move.

§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE
My Lords, as the noble Lord has intimated, this Bill has fallen into the category of those Bills which are now called agreed Bills. As such, I am certainly not prepared to raise any objection to it. At the same time I hope that the agreement which has been arrived at in the House of Commons will be extended outside as well, because from indications which I have already seen, there will be little prospect of agreement outside. I am anxious, in order to facilitate business and clear the atmosphere on a very small point to some extent, to call attention to one rather unfortunate incident. As your Lordships are aware, the Shop Hours Act of 1899 regulates the hours of employment, and that Act is administered by the London County Council. The Shop Hours Act of 1904 provides for the closing of shops, and that is administered by the local authorities. In the case of London, outside the City it is administered, of course, by the borough councils. This present Bill deals not only with the regulation of hours, but also extends the provisions for early closing. The unfortunate occurrence to which I have to call attention is connected with this. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill informed us quite correctly that it was considerably altered between the time that it passed through Grand Committee and the Report Stage in the House of Commons. A Home Office Paper was issued consisting of two parts—a copy of the Bill as passed by the Standing Committee, showing Amendments on Report; and a copy of the Bill as it would be if so amended, and under which, in the case of London, outside the City of London the authorities for working the Bill were the borough councils. But I am told that by an unfortunate inadvertence on the part of the draftsman a very important proviso was omitted, and the administration of the Act outside the City was transferred from the borough councils to the London County Council.
Any of your Lordships who are familiar with these questions which have for some time been argued as between the borough councils and the London County Council will know what that unfortunate omission means. I am sure that in the work now falling upon them the Government draftsmen have the ready sympathy of this House, but this omission is a very important one, and I am bound to point out 1120 that if the effect of this reversal had been fully appreciated and known it is extremely doubtful whether the Bill could have been treated as an agreed Bill. I have therefore to ask His Majesty's Government whether they still adhere to the view expressed by the revised edition of the Bill, or whether they are prepared to consider the question of restoring the administration of the Act in the case of London outside the City to the borough councils. The matter is one of considerable importance, and one to which the borough councils attach the greatest importance. If I am correctly informed, the borough councils are to some extent apprehensive, from threats which have been used elsewhere, that considerable alterations may be made in the government of London which may tend to a diminution of the work carried out by the borough councils. That does not necessarily arise on this Bill. But it is a most unfortunate thing that the borough councils, who had every reason to anticipate from the White Paper which was produced that they would be placed in the position which they desired to be placed in, should find their hopes dashed in this way. I do not intend to press the matter at this stage, but I understand that my noble friend Lord Malmesbury proposes to place an Amendment on the Paper which will afford the Government an opportunity of expressing their views on the matter. And in the event of their deciding to adhere to the London County Council as the authority for London, we shall be prepared to forego Our resistance and let the whole responsibility of depriving the borough councils of what is a perfectly legitimate power rest upon the shoulders of His Majesty's Government.

§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS
With the permission of the House I will say a word on the point raised by the noble Duke. As he said, this was an inadvertent omission from the White Paper. I think the noble Duke admits that?

§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE
Quite.

§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS
In the House of Commons on the Report stage the House was in possession of the fact that it was not the intention of the Government to go back from the position they had taken up all along not to introduce the borough councils as the authority. I do not think there was any doubt in the House 1121 or in the mind of anybody as to what the Intentions of the Government were. There was nothing to conceal. The noble Duke used the words "alter" and "reverse," as if this was a change of policy on the part of the Government. As a matter of fact, I am given to understand that when this Bill was debated in Committee the position of the Government was clearly stated. No Amendment was moved in Committee to make the borough councils the authorities. I know that no Amendment was placed on the Paper before the Report stage with a view of getting them made the administration authorities, and I know that no Division was challenged on the Report stage on this question. Therefore I do not understand how the noble Duke can use the words he did as describing the policy of the Government. On the merits of the question, it seems to me that when you come to the application of early closing orders, it is perfectly clear that a borough authority is not the one to entrust with this Act—

§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE
The borough councils have now the power of administering the orders for early closing.

§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS
Yes; and the fact that early closing has proceeded so slowly and to such a small extent proves the difficulties under which they labour. The noble Duke will see that the mere question of boundaries is an almost insuperable objection to applying an early closing order. If a street divides two authorities, it is clear you cannot apply an early closing order to one side of the street only. It is for that very reason that the Government consider that the borough authorities are not the best authorities to administer the Act and believe that if the London County Council administer the orders the early closing movement will make much greater strides in the future.