HL Deb 01 December 1925 vol 62 cc998-1005
1. 2. 3. 4.
Session and Chapter. Short Title. How far continued. Amending Acts.
(19)
10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 58 The Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920. The whole Act. 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 60.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in Part I of the Second Schedule, to leave out the reference to the Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920. The noble Lord said: I have put two Amendments on the Paper, but I propose to move the first only, the effect being to leave out the Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920. This Act provides, among other things, the following: Every shop shall be closed for the serving of customers not later than 8 o'clock in the evening on every day other than Saturday and not later than 9 o'clock in the evening on Saturday.

It goes on to define certain other places, which are not shops but which shall be deemed to be shops. It further says that the Order shall not prevent— (1) the serving of a customer where it is proved that the customer was in the shop before the closing hour or that reasonable grounds existed for believing that the article supplied after the closing hour to a customer was required in a case of illness; or (2) the sale after the closing hour of— (a) meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises; Provided that (1) in the case of railways, meals or refreshments may be sold after the closing hour on the railway premises to persons about to travel by rail.. (b) newly cooked provisions to be consumed off the premises.

That is to say, you may buy something which has been newly cooked, but you cannot buy a ham or pressed beef which has been cooked a few days before. Also (c) Any fruit specified in the Schedule to this Order or/and fresh fish or tripe;

There is a definition of soft fruit in the Schedule. It includes apricots, plums, greengages, cherries, black currants, raspberries, strawberries, loganberries, green figs and other fruits. You can buy them, but you cannot buy a pear or an apple.

Further, the sale after the closing hour is permitted of (d) intoxicating liquors to be consumed on or off the premises. I do not see Lord Balfour of Burleigh here, but that paragraph may appeal to him as a reason to vote with me, as I believe he does not approve of intoxicating liquor. Then it goes on to say: For the purposes of the exemption relating to the sale of meals or refreshments, (a) tobacco supplied at a meal for immediate consumption shall be deemed to form part of the meal. So you may buy tobacco if you have something to eat, but you cannot buy it if you do not have anything to eat. I presume if you have a cup of coffee you cannot buy a cigarette, but if you consume fish or meat then you can buy a cigarette. Then, refreshments shall not be deemed to include sweets, chocolate, or other sugar confectionery or ice cream. Therefore you can buy a cigarette if you have a meal but not if you have sweets, chocolate or sugar confectionery.

This Bill is the last remnant, I am happy to say, of D.O.R.A. and the history of it is as follows. It was introduced on July 30, 1920, in another Place and there it was stated that the measure was brought forward as a temporary measure to tide over the next eighteen months. That was nearly five and a-half years ago. The original Order was issued with a view to preventing the consumption of coal, and it was only coal. Further, the Order was only intended to extend over the winter of 1916–17. That is nine years ago. A Bill was introduced in order to prevent the consumption of coal and it was to have terminated in 1917, but it is still in force; and yet we believe this is a free country. The Home Secretary of that time said that it was not proposed to take any permanent stand with regard to the hours or anything else. He said they ought to have time to look round. He has had five and a-half years in which to look round, which, I should have thought, was plenty of time. Therefore, he said, they proposed to continue it for eighteen months. In 1921 I moved an Amendment in another place to leave out this Act and I withdrew my Amendment when the Home Secretary told me that the Act was a temporary measure and was still so regarded by the Government. In 1922 Mr. Macquisten moved to leave out this Act and he was again asked to withdraw his Amendment because, it was said, it may be that, as times improve, we may come to some permanent arrangement. Again, in 1923, its omission was moved and the same thing was said: Please withdraw the Amendment, because within a few months we are going to do something.

I have looked to sec what has taken place in your Lordships' House and I find that in November, 1920, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said this: The object of this Bill is to continue the existing general Early Closing Orders for shops until the end of 1921 so as to give time for the consideration of a permanent measure. The Bill before your Lordships has therefore been introduced with the object of continuing in force the existing provisions pending the introduction and consideration of a permanent measure which it is hoped will be brought in next year. That was in November, 1920, and I find that no one since that date has said a word on the subject in your Lordships' House. The Bill has been brought in formally, and it is evident that your Lordships expected Lord Onslow's statement on November 16, 1920, to be carried out.

Supposing that my Amendment is carried and the Shops Act, 1920, is left out, it may be asked what would be the position of shops. We shall revert to the Act of 1912–13. That Act regulated the employment of shop assistants for one day in the week and provided that they must have a half-holiday. In Section 5 (1) of that Act it is provided that An Order (in this Act referred to as 'a closing order') made by a local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State in manner provided by this Act, may fix the hours on the several days of the week at which, either throughout the area of the local authority or in any specified part thereof, all shops or shops of any certified class are to be closed for serving customers. I need not trouble your Lordships with the rest of the provisions, but there are provisions which enable a local authority, if it is satisfied that the majority of shops in its district requite to be closed early, to close them. Therefore we shall go back to what, after all, in some ways is not a bad thing—namely, local option. The shop-keepers in different parts of the country will be able to close their shops when it is suitable for them to do so, without being subjected to those restrictions and annoyances which will be in force if this last remnant of D.O.R.A. is continued.

A day or two ago I received a rather interesting post card which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read. The writer says: I read in to-day's Daily Mail a your intention to have the restrictions on the tobacco businesses removed, and in thanking you as an ordinary member of the public I should like to say that it would be indeed a feather in the cap of the House of Lords to prove to the Empire that it is not merely an ornament to the Constitution but a real business like House keenly alive to the interests and freedom of the people. The House of Lords, I am glad to see, has men not entirely devoted to society functions and also not afraid of losing votes at the next Election. Safeguard the hours of work of the employees, if you will, but do not unduly limit the hours of business. Wishing your Lordship every success in your work for the freedom of the people.… It is for the freedom of the people that I appeal to your Lordships to accept the Amendment which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 5, leave out lines 5 to 8.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

It falls to my lot to oppose this Amendment and to explain, if possible in a very few words to your Lordships, the consequences which would follow if it were accepted. I do not propose to follow my noble friend in his researches into the vegetable kingdom, or to discuss how far your Lordships' House would prove ornamental to the Constitution if you agreed to his Amendment. But what would happen if that took place is this. The Shops (Farly Closing) Act, which has met with the greatest possible acceptance amongst people of all sorts and descriptions in this country, would absolutely come to an end. Whether your Lordships would increase your popularity in the country, however much you might add to your ornamental position by doing that, I shall leave your Lordships to judge. The Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920, as has been truly said by my noble friend, came into operation under D.O.R.A.; but it does not necessarily follow that every Act which has been brought into existence to suit the convenience of the people under stress of war is necessarily bad in itself. I venture to think that the people of this country are fully persuaded that on the whole the Early Closing Act has been of the very greatest possible benefit. According, to the Shops (Early Closing) Act, which my noble friend wishes to abolish, shops have to be closed not later than 8 p.m. on every day other than Saturday and 9 p.m. on Saturday. That gives plenty of time for my noble friend to get his vegetables. At the same time it has proved to be acceptable to shopkeepers and assistants alike, and has been continued in force year by year up to the present time.

The arguments in favour of continuing the Shops (Early Closing) Act are that it has the support of all those bodies which are chiefly interested in the matter—namely, the Early Closing Association, the National Chamber of Trade, the National Union of Shop Assistants, and the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers: and, although I have not been favoured with private post cards, I have received a great many resolutions passed by the National Chamber of Trade and other bodies who are interested in the question. If this law were not continued for another year, we should revert, as my noble friend has justly said, to the Act of 1912. Under that Act no early closing was laid down by law; but there was a provision for one half-holiday in the week. On all the other week days shops would be allowed to remain open to any hour they liked.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

No.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Yes—unless local closing orders were made for particular trades or classes of shops. But that could not very easily be done. The machinery was very complicated. You had to get a two-thirds majority in the locality, and somebody had to make it their business to do that. Then you had to get each different locality to act. That was a very cumbrous, and was found to be a very inconvenient, system. It is infinitely better and fairer for everybody concerned in the different trades that there should be one law for closing throughout the country, and unless certain trades can prove exceptional circumstances they should not have exceptional facilities given them.

In all these general laws, of course, there may be instances of individual hardship. Experience has shown that not only has early closing proved to be of the greatest possible benefit to traders and their assistants, but the public have already acquired a habit of shopping rather earlier and buying their cigarettes and vegetables before eight o'clock on weekdays and nine o'clock on Saturdays. If the Act of 1920 were allowed to lapse the great bulk of shopkeepers and assistants would regard it as a calamity, and I do not think such a result is desired by the people in general. There is opposition from certain quarters—the retail tobacco trade is one of them—but I should like to draw the attention of the House to this fact, that the allegation that small shopkeepers generally are in favour of longer hours was strenuously denied by the small shopkeepers who attended the deputation from the Early Closing Association to Mr. Locker-Lampson in January last. A deputation was also received last February from the National Chamber of Trade, which represents a large number of small shopkeepers. There was also a deputation at the Home Office, and on that occasion the Home Secretary expressed his willingness to consider objections which might be raised by the small traders, and to institute special legislation, but no representations were received from any organised body. On the contrary, strong representations were made that the trade, as a whole, small and large, approved of the Early Closing Act.

I do not know that it is necessary for me to go into the various points that have been raised, but I think I am justified in saying this. I agree with my noble friend—and I hope he will lend his valuable assistance when the time comes—that it is necessary to review the whole question, to appoint a Committee, and see whether the various objections that have been raised (none of them very strong) could be met. I quite agree that the time is ripe for legislation, but I venture to point out to your Lordships that it would be a serious calamity to the traders of this country, shopkeepers and everyone else, if the Early Closing Act were not renewed for this year.

LORD PARMOOR

I should like to say a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, has said. I do not desire to go into the merits of the case, but surely it would be the worst possible precedent to deal with a matter of this kind, which raises controversy and difference of opinion, on the Expiring Laws Bill, upon which it is quite impossible to discuss a matter of this kind. We, on this side of the House, are entirely in favour of the early closing movement. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Banbury, takes a different view. I will say only one further word, and it is this. I think that this discussion shows the value of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, and that matters of this kind, if they are to be discussed at all, should be discussed in a Joint Committee, in a Committee of your Lordships' House and the other House, in order to determine whether an Act of this kind should be continued or not. I think it is quite impossible to discuss this matter on the floor of this House. It is a flatter which has to be discussed on Second Reading, Committee stage and Report stage, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, will not succeed in getting passed the Amendment that he has brought forward. I have been asking those of more experience than myself whether they knew of any precedent for a Motion of this kind on the Expiring Laws Bill, and I cannot find that any of them know of any precedent in this House. I sincerely

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.