HL Deb 12 July 1928 vol 71 cc989-97

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

My Lords, I desire to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill which is intended to make permanent the existing conditions as to closing of shops. It speaks for itself. It is the result of the work of a Departmental Committee which sat last year and which reported, I think, the same Session. As the result of the ballot in the other place a very early date was secured for the Bill, which passed the House of Commons on its Second Reading and also on Third Reading without any Division. It is perfectly true that in the Second Reading debate the Government reserved the power to delete Clause 2 of the Bill, which exempted owners of single shops who did not employ any assistants. That clause was deleted and it is right to say that the Second Reading of the Bill was carried on the strict understanding that that would be done. The question may be raised again here but the promoters of the Bill have accepted that deletion. In the Standing Committee the Clause was deleted by 28 votes to 4, so that there was a very large majority against its retention. The Committee, in dealing with that matter in their Report, said it would give rise to administrative difficulties and, although there was a good deal of opinion in favour of it, held largely by associations representing these people, the general effect of the evidence given to the Committee was that it was unnecessary to enact any provision of that kind.

I do not think it is necessary to go through the details of the Bill. I do not want to occupy your Lordships' time at any length. I hope you will think the Bill a good and useful one. It is intended to make permanent the provisions in the 1920 and 1921 Acts which were enacted originally under D.O.R.A. and it is a good thing, I think, to get rid of all the remnants of D.O.R.A. The closing of shops under those Orders has been continued from year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. It has worked extremely well, shops closing at nine o'clock one evening in the week and eight o'clock on other evenings, with a half holiday on another day, and I think your Lordships will agree that it is most desirable to make that state of things permanent. If your Lordships will read Clause 1 of the Bill with the First Schedule you will see a very long list of exemptions relating to tobacco, confectionery and ego forth. The position previously has been rather peculiar in some respects. I believe, for instance, you could get a glass of whisky but not a bottle of soda water to dilute it. Things of that- sort will be put right by this Bill and you will be able to buy table water if you buy whisky. Most of these exceptions, or very nearly all of them, have been dealt with in the Bill. I do not think I need say anything further. I hope your Lordships will at all events give a Second Reading to the Bill and in the Committee stage, if any one chooses to do so, the question of the deleted clause can be raised again. That is the one thing in connection with the Bill which I think is likely to occupy your Lordships at all. Therefore, with some confidence, I ask your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading.

Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

VISCOUNT SUMNER

My Lords, my noble friend with unerring instinct, probably acquired in what he called "the other place," has perceived that the real interest of this Bill lies in something which it does not contain. The real interest, I take it, is in the fact that, so far as I know for the first time, it is to be enacted that:— Every shop shall, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be closed for the serving of customers not later than nine o'clock in the evening on one day in the week (in this Act referred to as 'the late day'), and not later than eight o'clock in the evening on any other days in the week. That is to say, for all shopkeepers alike, it is to be enacted that they are not to choose the time when they will do their own business and endeavour to carry it on themselves in the way which suits them, but that by a regulation of an almost regimental character they are to be compelled to shut up shop at an early hour in the evening. It is true that an early hour in the morning is still left open to them, but that seems to be no consolation, and it is the case that in another place the interest largely centred around what was then Clause 2, which ran as follows:— Any shop may be kept open during the general closing hours if no person other than the owner of the shop is employed or engaged in or about the business of the shop during those hours. Before you give a Second Reading to a Bill which does not now contain that clause and which compels every person to close his shop rather than keep it open by himself, I should have thought that your Lordships would like to hear some more details and, I may add, more enthusiastic support than you have received from my noble friend.

With unerring instinct he has rather invited your Lordships to accept the idea that the true discussion must take place on the Committee stage, when obviously someone will move to restore the clause. Unless some subsequent speaker on behalf of the Government can really put a better face on the matter than has been put so far, I think that such a course is not only desirable but, indeed, inevitable. I am quite unable to understand how it can be that under any Bill whose justification is the welfare of shop assistants, and in which so far as I can understand the shopkeepers themselves who employ the assistants are not principally and not really largely concerned, you should stringently shut up the shop of a man who employs no assistants at all and therefore has nobody in his employment who may suffer injustice or be brought within the scope of the Bill.

I have read the Report of the proceedings in another place and I have read the Report of the Departmental Committee. I must say that such justification as is to be found for this course in either of those two Reports is most singularly scanty. What the Committee said about it was this:— We have also considered the possibility of differentiating between shops in which assistants are employed and those in which they are not, and requiring the first class to close at a fixed hour while leaving the second class free to remain open to any hour. We think such a method would give rise to serious administrative difficulties and would, in addition, be open to other objections, not least among them being the undesirability of allowing shops where no assistants are employed unlimited hours to compete with shops conducted with the aid of assistants. That is the way the Committee put it, and then I come to read the speech of the Home Secretary, in which he announced why it was that the Government with very great determination—a determination, I might almost say, uncommon in their record—declared that they had taken a definite decision and could not run away. He said: "… we shall ask our own Party to support us on this point." When I come to look at that warlike speech I find that the administrative difficulties consist of nothing more than this, that you would have to employ inspectors—what of course are called "an army of inspectors"—to visit the shops in order to find out whether it is really the case that the one man who is sitting behind his counter waiting for customers is not an assistant but an employer and has no assistants concealed about the premises.

Perhaps later in this discussion or on another occasion we may hear some rather more satisfactory explanation of the matter than that, but I should think that your Lordships will all be of opinion primâ facie that the small man, the poor man, even the industrious man ought not to be penalised merely because it is undesirable that he should be allowed unlimited hours in which to compete with shops conducted with the aid of assistants. The man who wants to compete with him can send his assistants home and do his own work, and why, as a matter of principle, your Lordships should be asked to forbid this I confess that I cannot see. As I regard your Lordships as being primarily the defenders of those who are poor and humble, I trust that on a subsequent occasion we may at any rate manage to elicit some better defence for the oppression that is contemplated than has hitherto been heard.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I think there will be no doubt that the Bill in its present form and on a Second Reading Motion would have substantially the support of all members of your Lordships' House. Certainly the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading carried us with him, particularly those of us who have followed carefully the discussions which took place in the House of Commons. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, has raised the question of the omission of the original Clause 2. As I understand his view to be also that of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, that is a matter which can be further raised and discussed on the Committee stage.

I do not want to delay your Lordships with it at the present time, but I am bound to say that for my own part I do not look on this Bill as penalising the shopkeeper without assistants. I think that this is a wrong way of looking at is altogether. I think that, so far as a Bill of this kind is concerned, to have administrative uniformity in keeping shops open, such as is provided by the provisions that we have here in Clause 1 and the subsequent clauses, is of the very greatest importance not only to the shopkeepers themselves and to their assistants Oat in regard to the whole administration of an Act of this kind. It is quite clear—and I am sure the noble Lord would be first to resent this—that if you were to have an exception of this kind you would have to have a very large measure of inspection. I do not know how far the shopkeepers themselves feel that they would like such an inspection, but, so far as I have heard, they do not raise any objection to this Bill. It is a theoretical and abstract objection and not one which works in practice. Less control and interference will result from having a uniform system. We on this Bench certainly support the Second Leading of the Bill.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I shall have very great pleasure in supporting my noble friend below me (Viscount Sumner) if in the Committee stage he moves an Amendment to allow shopkeepers who are working by themselves or with their own families to do what they like with what, after all, is their own property—namely, their own time. What is it that we really want at the present moment in this country? It is not that we should have to curtail hours of labour and do as little as we can. What we want to do is to encourage people to work as long as they possibly can and to put their whole energies into it. It is that which made the prosperity of the country in the past, and it is the idea that nobody is to work any longer than he can possibly help and that everybody is to do as little as possible in that very short time that will bring this country to ruin. At the present time when every foreign country is working far longer hours than anybody here, when we are overburdened with an enormous Debt and tremendous taxation, to attempt to prevent an unfortunate person who, imitating the characteristics of his forefathers, endeavours to do what he can for himself without regard to whether he is working six hours or seven hours or eight and a half hours, is a mistake.

With regard to the particular proposal which I understand that my noble and learned friend may make, all that he proposes is that a person who has a shop and employs no assistant—I hope it will include his own family—is to be allowed to do as he likes. When I was the Member for Peckham, a good many years ago, I fought this very question with great determination, and I remember at one of my elections going round to a shop run by the owner and his wife. What happens in these small shops is that there is a bell at the top of the door, and when you go in the bell rings. Very often the proprietor and his wife are not in the shop at all, but in their back parlour, having lunch or tea or whatever it is, or doing something other than work in the shop. When they hear a customer enter they come out into the shop. In those days I was always enthusiastically received, because it was known that I was in favour of leaving them to do as they liked so long as they did not injure anybody else.

But one day before the Election a woman in one of these shops was very fierce and nearly ordered me out. She then explained that it was because she had been told that I was in favour of preventing them from working as long as they liked. I endeavoured to show her that she was mistaken, and brought the OFFICIAL REPORT to show she was mistaken, because I had always taken the other line. So determined, however, was she not to have any infringement of her liberty that she would not even listen to what I said, or read the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I believe I lost her vote, or rather her husband's vote. With regard to shop assistants, there is no reason that I can see why it is necessary to say that they may not work for more than a certain number of hours, and no reason why you should prevent an individual doing as he likes in such a matter. I hope my noble and learned friend, who always comes forward in defence of the poor and defenceless, will press his Amendment to a Division.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, it is very rarely that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord who has just spoken, and rarely have I found myself so completely out of agreement with him as at the present time. The logical sequence of his argument is that all our factory legislation should be swept away, that there should be no kind of limit on hours, and that we should return to the conditions which caused such terrible suffering at the time of the industrial revolution. I am not prepared to argue with him simply on the main question of principle. I prefer to refer to the particular difficulty which he and the other noble Lord who has spoken in criticism of this measure have raised—namely, that those who work in their own shops without assistance are to come under the operation of this measure. The noble Lord assumes that all these people are extremely anxious that they should be allowed to work as long as they like. I personally, not lately but in the past, have been very frequently in contact with those who own quite small shops, and I sought at one time, before there was legislation of this nature, to try to induce by voluntary arrangement the small shopkeepers in a certain town to come to an agreement by which they would close their shops at a certain hour. I found that the great majority of them were eager to do this, but the objection which wrecked all voluntary attempts arose from the fact that there were a small minority—four or five, or possibly more individuals—who said that at all cost they would keep their shops open. They would then capture a certain amount of custom which went to their competitors who were prepared to close their shops at an earlier hour. It was because of this that the scheme broke down.

The noble Lord speaks as if this would affect only the owners of the shops which are kept open, but what about the members of their families? Their sons and their daughters, in many eases, would be compelled to work for long hours, while if they had been assistants in other shops they would have had their freedom for ordinary exercise and recreation. No doubt other speakers can point out how grave the administrative difficulties would be. I have heard the noble Lord who spoke last protesting against the existing number of inspectors, but if you put a clause like this into the Bill you would have to have additional inspectors to go round to the shops after eight o'clock in the evening, in order to see that those who are working in the shops are the owners or members of their family only. I believe this measure is a very useful measure, and I hope that it will go through practically as it stands. It will be of real assistance to some who otherwise would work unduly long hours.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, I only rise to say that the Government give this Bill their very warm approval. The noble Viscount who introduced it explained its provisions very clearly. As a result of very strong representations made, and a strong desire shown, that the Regulations governing the closing of shops should be revised, a Departmental Committee was set up last year, and I think that this Bill gives effect very closely to the recommendations of that Committee. It is quite obvious that the main discussion on this Bill is going to centre round the clause which was deleted in another place, relating to one-man shops. I think it is only right to point out that even as things are at present these one-man shops are not exempted, and I think it is only right to say that in another place the Government did strongly urge the deletion of this clause, which was subsequently deleted, and it is obvious that there are strong objections to re-inserting it here. In fact there would be a good deal of difficulty if it were passed in administering it. I do not intend at this stage to enter upon the merits of the point, for obviously it is a point which can be discussed when the Bill reaches Committee stage. I will therefore only repeat that the Government give the Bill their very warm approval, and trust that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.