SHOPS BILL.

HL Deb 13 March 1934 vol 91 cc117-45

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Hours of employment

(2) On occasions of seasonal or exceptional pressure of work at any shop, young persons may, subject as hereinafter provided, and subject to the provisions of any other enactment, be employed about the business of the shop overtime, that is to say, in excess of the normal maximum working hours:

Provided that in the case of any shop—

1. (a) when in any year there have been six weeks (whether consecutive or not) in which any young person has been employed overtime about the business of the shop, no young parson shall be so employed during the remainder of that year;
2. (b) no young person shall be employed overtime about the business of the shop—
   1. (i) in any year after he has been employed overtime about the business of that or any other shop for fifty working hours in that year;
   2. (ii) in any week after he has been employed overtime about the business of that or any other shop for twelve working hours in that week.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I trust your Lordships will not misconstrue our motives on these Benches for putting down several rather drastic Amendments for your consideration this afternoon. We welcome this measure as a whole, because it is a step in the direction of establishing humane conditions of labour for those boys and girls who are forced to find a living from the day they leave school. But we quarrel with it because, in our opinion, it does not go nearly far enough, and because it leaves many loopholes through which the young people can be subjected to cruel overwork. I should like to say that it is the common object of all the Amendments standing in my name to extend the very limited protection afforded by the present measure to young persons in the distributive trades.

If your Lordships would be so good as to glance at subsection (2) of Clause 1, you will observe that its aim is to provide for the working of overtime during periods of seasonal pressure. The actual effect of this subsection, if the Bill passes into law, will be that for nearly three years—that is to say, until the end of 1936—it will remain legally possible to employ boys and girls in the distributive trades under the age of eighteen for sixty-four hours per week during periods of seasonal pressure, and that afterwards, when the hours are reduced, it will still be possible to employ them for a sixty-hour week. We submit to your Lordships' serious consideration that ten hours a day represents too long a period for growing boys and girls who should, indeed, have more repose and leisure than adult workers. May I also point out that for adult workers the eight-hour day is already generally accepted as a maximum standard in civilised communities? Besides the injury to health and to mental development caused by such an extension of the working day, it is surely going to increase the burden of unemployment. The possibility of using employees for longer periods during certain portions of the year means that the employer does not engage more hands for this purpose. That is to say that our standing army of unemployed—and, my Lords, it is a standing army whether times are good or times are bad—will not be relieved when the good times come along and it is possible for the employer to recruit more workers.

The case of the distributive trades is specially interesting from this point of view. It cannot be said that employers in these trades are unable to afford more employees, because these trades were far less badly hit than any other branch of industry and commerce of the country by the great economic depression. They are, therefore far more able from the economic standpoint to draft more men, or women as the case may be, into their businesses when times are good. What I submit to your Lordships is that, both from the point of view of the welfare of these young workers and from the point of view of the state of employment in the country, it is not desirable to include this subsection in Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Listowel.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I fully appreciate the reason why the noble Earl wishes to omit this subsection, and I realise that the Amendments which he is going to move will not be moved as a reflection in any way upon the provisions of the Bill but merely because, in his opinion, the Bill does not go sufficiently far. As I explained in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, it is considered reasonable that special provision should be made to meet the periods of pressure which occur in the distributive trades; for example, at Christmas-time or at other holiday periods. In order to ensure that this overtime is limited to those periods of pressure and is not used to lengthen the working week during the year, it is provided that overtime shall be worked in six weeks only in any year, the weeks to be selected by the shopkeeper. As the noble Earl has argued, it may be that a working week of sixty hours after the transitional period of two years may be too long for young persons but, as I pointed out on Second Reading, the annual maximum of fifty hours—or twenty-four hours during the transitional period—is only possible for four weeks in any year. That means that any young person can work overtime for sixty-four hours during the two years and sixty hours after the transitional period for not more than four weeks in the whole year.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

May I say that I did not intend to imply that a young person could work sixty-four hours a week for the whole two years. Perhaps I did not express myself sufficiently clearly.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The omission of any provision for overtime would certainly make a great deal of difference to the traders who have, by their representations to the Home Office, stressed the need for elasticity to enable them to deal with certain periods of pressure. In view of the well-known intensity of this pressure at certain periods, particularly at Christmas, any narrower limit than that proposed would give rise to considerable difficulties. Further, having in view that the overtime provision will be of special benefit to the small shopkeepers who will have to adjust their staffs according to the increased limitation of hours it is most important that no alteration should be made in the provision which restricts overtime. I therefore have to tell the noble Earl that I am unable to accept his Amendment.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

There is one point raised by my noble friend behind me with which the noble Earl hardly dealt. My noble friend suggested that instead of an extension of hours in the case of workers already employed opportunity should be afforded on these occasions for the employment of outside people. The Post Office, for instance, during the Christmas season employ a number of temporary postmen in order to deal with the pressure of work. This subsection gives the employer the right, as we think, very much to overwork his staff instead of introducing new workers from outside during times of pressure. I do not quite see what is the objection to doing that.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

When we come to Clauses 5 and 6 there are special concessions made to such trades as catering and to garages that have periods of pressure. I would point out to the noble Lord in answer to the point he raised that the scope of the Bill is limited to the distributive trades.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

I do not often agree with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, but on this occasion it does seem to me that we are going rather far in the extensions which are outlined in the Bill. Surely, any of us who had boys or girls going out to work would think a forty-eight-hour working week quite long enough for them if they were under eighteen years of age. How can they have leisure or time to complete their education if they are going to work for more than forty-eight hours? Indeed, I think in some cases forty-eight hours may be too long. Therefore I am not quite convinced by the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, when he says that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and that you have to make concessions to the traders. It may be that in certain trades substituted service is impossible and that they must have employees who are accustomed to a particular class of work, but surely he will not tell me that in all the distributive trades it is impossible to follow the example of the Post Office which, as the noble Lord has pointed out, employs extra hands during the period of stress. I do most sincerely ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he cannot outline some concession which could be put forward on the Report stage.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I would like to point out to the noble Lord that the scope of the Bill is based on the recommendation of the Report of the Select Committee in 1931. In paragraph 225 of their Report they say: It is obvious that no sudden and immediate application of the new regulation would be demanded and that a period would be allowed for adjustment. The noble Lord referred to the maximum number of hours worked by young persons and did not confine his remarks to the substance of the Amendment, which is overtime. I would like to point out to the noble Lord opposite that before the transitional period sixty hours is the maximum which can be worked by any young person, because in Clause 2 it is provided that instead of the weekly maximum overtime being twelve hours, as it will be after the transitional period, up to 1936 the maximum overtime will be eight hours per week, and, therefore the maximum that any young person can work will be sixty hours. Owing to the recommendations of the Select Committee upon which the scope of the Bill is based, I hope your Lordships will appreciate that in order to meet the demands placed

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment negatived accordingly. Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Temporary modification of limitation on hours imposed by Act.

2. Until the twenty-seventh day of December nineteen hundred and thirty-six before the Home Office by the small shopkeeper it is impossible to make any greater provision for the restriction of overtime, and that there should be opportunity for the smaller shopkeepers to adjust their staffs before the general provisions, beginning from 1937, come into operation.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I would like to express my gratitude for the extremely clear account of the Government's attitude to the Amendment. At the same time I am very regretful that the noble Earl fails to meet either of the extremely important points that I made. In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, pointed out, it is a scandalous thing for young people under eighteen years of age to be worked for sixty hours a week, even for four weeks in the year. It is much too great a trial of strength for them to endure. In the second place, surely it is rather narrow-minded, even for employers in the catering trade, not to be willing to draft more hands into their business at times of seasonal pressure such as during the Christmas holidays, instead of overworking those who are in their employment at the moment. These points seem so important that I am bound to press them.

On Question, Whether subsection (2) shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Chesham, L.
		Clwyd, L.
Reading, M.	Bridgeman, V.	Cobham, L.
	Chaplin, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Feversham, E.	Hailsham, V.	Gainford, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Halifax, V.	Hindlip, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Knutsford, V.	Marks, L.
Munster, E.	Mersey, V.	Rankeillour, L.
On slow, E.		Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Stanhope, E.	Amulree, L.	Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) [Teller.]	Marley, L. [Teller.]	Rhayader, L.
	Mount Temple, L.	Snell, L.
Hutchison of Montrose, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Strabolgi, L.

the foregoing provisions of this Act shall have effect as if—

1. (a) for any reference therein to forty-eight working hours there were substituted a reference to fifty-two working hours;
2. (b) for any reference to fifty working hours there were substituted a reference to twenty-four working hours;
123
3. (c) for any reference to twelve working hours there were substituted a reference to eight working hours.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: I beg to draw your Lordships' attention for a moment to the very surprising provisions contained in Clause 2 of this Bill. This clause makes the entire Bill, supposing it is passed and becomes law, inoperative until the end of 1936; that is to say, its operation will be suspended for nearly three years. Is there any good reason why the limitation of hours and overtime proposed by this measure should be postponed for so long a period We should all agree that employers should have a right to be given a fair warning about any legislation that alters conditions in their businesses, in order that they may have time to adapt themselves comfortably and reasonably to any approaching change. We all appreciate that, and it is the custom of your Lordships' House to take that into consideration before you pass any measure that effects changes in the management of any business in the country. But the Select Committee on Shop Assistants, to which my noble friend referred a few moments ago, reported in 1932, and, as that Committee was set up in 1930, tradesmen and shopkeepers must be aware that this matter has been before Parliament for its serious consideration for a considerable period. Two years have elapsed since that Report appeared, and the Select Committee, which brought in a unanimous Report, was not in favour of any such delay in the operation of the Bill as we have embodied in Clause 2. In view of the length of time that these proposals have been before the public eye, and in view of the Report of the Select Committee, which did not favour a postponement on these grounds, the nine months which will elapse in any case before the Bill becomes law are an ample period of time for employers to adapt themselves to the special provisions which this measure contains.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 2.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I must condemn the remark of the noble Lord when he says that the Select Committee in 1931 recommended that the period when the forty-eight-hour week is to come into operation should begin at once. They most emphatically laid down that there should be a time for adjustment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Yes. I did not mean that they reported in favour of the Bill coming into operation immediately. I simply meant that they did not report that the Bill should be delayed for the long period of nearly three years, which is the proposal in the present measure.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The argument applies in the case of this Amendment as in that of the last, inas[...] much as it is felt, after very strong representations have been made to the Home Office, that the period which the noble Earl suggests is not sufficiently long, owing to limited staff, for the shopkeeper to adapt his conditions to the forty-eight-hour week. It is, therefore, felt by the Government that it would be indefensible as a permanent arrangement to lay down normal maximum hours for young persons which exceed forty-eight, but it is felt that a transitional period of two years is very desirable indeed. That applies particularly to the smaller shopkeeper. I hope that that emphasis which I place upon the requirements of the smaller shopkeeper will satisfy the noble Earl.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I do not really quite understand why the period of more than two years should be required. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain what these adjustments are. What adjustment has a small shopkeeper to make that necessitates his making arrangements for the next two-and-a-half years? I am simply ignorant on the subject. I cannot conceive it. If the employers made such strong representations they must have brought forward some arguments which showed how difficult these arrangements will be. It seems to us that the arrangements are perfectly simple, and in six months any employer could adjust his business in order to meet the new requirements.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

May I reinforce what has fallen from time noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby? We have here a Bill which says that young people under eighteen shall not be employed for more than forty-eight hours a week. The most that can happen to the shopkeeper, large or small, I take it, is that he may have to engage more hands. He cannot claim that there is no unemployment, even among the younger people. There is a great deal of unemployment among the younger people. Therefore to come and ask this House to say that getting a few extra hands requires two and three-quarter years really seems to me to be playing with the House. Either the proposal of forty-eight hours is right or it is wrong. If it is right, I submit that six months after the passing of this Bill would give ample time for the shopkeepers to put their house in order.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I do not know whether the noble Lords who have just spoken appreciate the position of the small shopkeeper. Under existing legislation the small shopkeper has much difficulty in competing adequately with the growing tendency of multiple shops to spread in provincial towns, and the two-year period is the minimum within which the small shopkeeper can have a sufficient turnover and save a sufficient amount to employ the extra staff to which Lord Mount Temple referred. It is not possible in present circumstances for a small shopkeeper at will to employ numbers of young persons, as he desires. In fact, I have only this afternoon received intimation from the National Chamber of Trade that the transitional period of two years is not sufficiently long for the small shopkeeper in which to change the conditions.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I regret that my noble friend has not been able to meet our desires more adequately. The period in question is not, I am sorry to say, one of two years, but of nearly three, and I think that it must be very exceptional for your Lordships to pass a measure whose operation is suspended for so long a period. It strikes one that at bottom the trades-

men themselves are naturally anxious to stave off for as long as possible a law that will obviously to a certain extent encroach on their profits, and it is quite natural that the noble Earl should receive letters imploring him to postpone the operation of the measure to a still later date. But, as our concern is that these young people should receive this small measure of protection at the earliest possible opportunity, and as we believe that the tradesmen will not be injured if given an adequate notice—amounting, as it would be if this clause were omitted, to nine months—we must insist on this Amendment.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

May I ask the noble Earl if he would make a concession on the Report stage and abbreviate the period, not to six months, but anyhow to some period which is considerably shorter than that which is in the Bill?

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The Department which I represent mean to resist any advance that is made to lessen the transitional period below two years, and therefore I am afraid I do not think there would be any purpose in replying otherwise to the noble Earl.

LORD AMULIZEE

Might I suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that this is a matter surely for a compromise? As the Bill stands this provision will come into operation in two-and-half years' time—that is, two years from the 1st January, 1935. Surely, after the representations which have been made from various quarters of the House, the period of time might at least be reduced to twelve months?

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Bridgeman, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
	Hailsham, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Feversham, E.	Halifax, V.	Hindlip, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Mersey, V.	Marks, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]		Rankeillour, L.
Munster, E.	Chesham, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Onslow, E.	Clwyd, L.
Stanhope, E.	Cobham, L.	Templemore, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Desborough, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Knutsford, V.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) [Teller.]	Mount Temple, L.
		Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Amulree, L.	Hutchison of Montrose, L.	Rhayader, L.
Gainford, L.	Marley, L. [Teller]	Snell, L.
		Strabolgi

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly. Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Restrictions on night employment.

3.—(1) A young person who is employed about the business of a shop shall in every period of twenty-four hours between midday on one day and midday on the next day be allowed an interval of at least eleven consecutive hours which shall include the hours from ten o'clock in the evening until six o'clock in the morning:

Provided that the said interval of eleven consecutive hours need not include the hour between five and six o'clock in the morning in the case of male persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years who are employed in connection with the delivery of milk or bread daring that hour.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE

moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "include," to insert "the hour between ten and eleven o'clock in the evening in the case of persons employed in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises; or". The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment for the purpose of pointing out the hardship which this Bill brings to licensed traders in Scotland. We feel that there they are under special laws; they are regulated by Statute, and opening, closing, and trading generally are fixed by Statute. They are not free to close their premises when they want to, and they are under regulation by the justices who may, under the law, keep the houses open till eleven o'clock at night if they so wish. Therefore it seems to me a hardship that these people who are carrying on a legitimate trade under definite laws should have another law, so to speak, dovetailed into the licensing laws. It is quite true that in many places the closing hour is sometimes half-past nine and sometimes ten o'clock, but the feeling is that exemption should take place in regard to this particular trade as it is under special laws. These traders cater for the public. They are by law authorised to keep their premises open for the public, and I suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that there is a case to be met in the Amendment which I have put down. I do not want to debate the matter at great length. It is well known, and I have no doubt it was brought before the Select Committee, but I do suggest that the special exemptions which took place in the Shops Act, 1912, should be continued here. I see no reason why these exemptions should not be continued to-day. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 30, after ("include") insert ("the hour between ten and eleven o'clock in the evening in the case of persons employed in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises; or").—(Lord Hutchison, of Montrose.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The object of Clause 3 is to secure for young persons that they shall have eleven consecutive hours of rest and that this period shall include the hours from ten o'clock in the evening until six o'clock in the morning as is applied to young persons in industry by existing legislation. That comes under the Act of 1920 with regard to the employment of women, young persons, and children. Certain exemptions are made, as the noble Lord has stated, to young persons who are engaged in the delivery of milk or bread where they can rise in the morning at five o'clock instead of six o'clock, and there are certain modifications in the case of theatres and places of entertainment. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to allow young persons employed in licensed premises to work up till eleven o'clock at night, and the noble Lord has urged that as under one Statute the licensing authorities may stipulate that licensed premises should be open till certain hours, therefore the persons employed in these premises should be employed up to the time of closing.

The noble Lord has said that there is no legislation which deals with the restriction of the employment of young persons in licensed premises, and that is very largely correct except for the fact that under Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act a local authority may prohibit the employment of children in any specified occupation, and they have also the power to limit the number of hours worked by young persons; and if a local authority so desired they could, under existing legislation, specify that the hours of young persons should not be continued for the full period laid down in regard to licensed premises. The concession for the restaurants is made to enable British youths who are in training to become waiters and cooks, to gain the necessary experience. It has been urged that unless these young persons can be employed in restaurants where suppers are served after ten o'clock at right the success of the apprenticeship scheme for British boys will be jeopardised. But it is held that this concession is of a strictly limited character, and it is not considered desirable to extend it beyond these few shops which make a business of serving meals after ten o'clock, to which, as I have intimated to the noble Lord, rather exceptional circumstances apply which seem to render it justifiable that the general provision should be extended. I hope that after that explanation the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE

In view of what the noble Earl has said I beg to withdraw my Amendment. I was not aware of the matters which he has pointed out to your Lordships.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Special provisions as to the catering trade.

5.—(1) The occupier of any shop in which there is carried on the business of serving meals, intoxicating liquors, or refreshments to customers for consumption on the premises may, by exhibiting a notice to that effect, secure on not more than twelve occasions in any year that the provisions of this subsection will, during a period of two weeks specified in the notice, be applicable to that shop, and when such a notice has been duly exhibited in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner and at such time before the period therein specified as may be prescribed, then—

1. (a) a young person whose employment is wholly or mainly in connection with the said business, shall be deemed, for the purposes of Section one of this Act, not to be employed about the business of the shop in excess of the normal maximum working hours in either week of the 130 period specified in the notice, if he is employed about the business thereof neither for more than sixty working hours in either week nor for more than ninety-six hours throughout the period; and
2. (b) the provisions of the said Section one permitting employment overtime shall not apply during the period specified in the notice in relation to young persons whose employment is such as aforesaid.

(2) Until the twenty-seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, the last foregoing subsection shall have effect as if for the reference therein to ninety-six working hours there wore substituted a reference to one hundred and four working hours.

(3) Proviso (a) to subsection (2) of Section one of this Act shall not apply to the overtime employment of persons whose employment is wholly or mainly in connection with the business of serving meals, intoxicating liquors, or refreshments to customers for consumption on the premises, and, where that business is carried on in a department of a shop, being a shop in which other business is carried on, the said proviso shall apply as respects other departments of the shop as if the first-mentioned business were carried on in a separate shop.

(4) As respects male persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years whose employment is wholly or mainly in connection with the business of serving meals to customers for consumption on the premises the interval of at least eleven consecutive hours required by Section three of this Act need not include any time after ten o'clock in the evening during which they are wholly employed in connection with that business.

(5) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section one of the Shops Act, 1313, shall cease to have effect as respects young persons.

(6) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any person employed in a residential hotel who is not a shop assistant within the meaning of Section nineteen of the Shops Act, 1912, or, where the provisions of the Shops Act, 1913, apply, within the meaning of subsection (5) of Section one of that Act.

(7) In relation to any shop in which other business is carried on this section shall apply to a department in which there is carried on the business of serving meals, intoxicating liquors, or refreshments to customers for consumption on the premises as if that department were a separate shop.

THE EARL or FEVERSHAM

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "on not more than twelve occasions in any year." The noble Earl said: Clause 5 provides that a person engaged in the catering trade may average his hours over a period of a fortnight on twelve occasions in a calendar year. The object of this and the next Amendment standing in my name is to provide for the case where the caterer wishes to average his hours over a fortnight commencing towards the end of December and ending in January, thus extending one of his twelve periods into the next calendar year. In such a case the fortnight counts towards the total of twelve in one year only, that is the year in which it commenced. Without these Amendments it might be held to count in both years. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— >Page 4, line 14, leave out ("on not more than twelve occasions in any year").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided that after the provisions of this subsection have been applicable to any shop during twelve such periods beginning in any calendar year, the said provisions shall not again be applicable to the shop in that year.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

THE EARL of FEVERSHAM

moved, in subsection (2), after "nineteen hundred and thirty-six," to insert "or, as respects any shop to which the provisions of the last foregoing subsection are applicable during a period comprising that date until the expiration of that period." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the fortnight which falls partly in the transitional period when the fortnightly hours are 104 and partly after the 27th December, 1936, when the hours are reduced to 96. The effect of the Amendment is that a fortnight commencing in the transitional period is regarded as being wholly in that period, and the 104 hours would therefore apply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, after ("thirty-six") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

moved, in subsection (4), to leave out the words "after ten o'clock in the evening" and insert "between ten o'clock in the evening and one o'clock in the following morning." The noble Earl said: The object of this subsection is to allow apprentice waiters and cooks over sixteen years of age to be employed after ten o'clock in the evening where suppers are served. As the clause stands, it would not allow youths whose spell of work commenced before eleven o'clock at night to be employed after one o'clock in the morning, in view of the fact that they must under Clause 3, "Restriction on night employment," have a rest period of eleven consecutive hours between midday on one clay and mid-day on the next day. On the other hand, it would allow those persons whose employment commenced at or after eleven o'clock at night, and who could thus have got in their period of eleven hours rest since mid-day, to be employed right through the night. That is not the intention of the subsection, and the object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the modification of the night-rest provisions applies only to the period between ten o'clock in the evening and one o'clock in the morning, and that in no circumstaces may these young persons be employed after one o'clock a.m.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 13, leave out ("after ten o'clock in the evening") and insert ("between ten o'clock in the evening and one o'clock in the following morning.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE

had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (6), after the words "shall not apply to", to insert "any person employed in any premises licensed for the retail of intoxicating liquor or." The noble Lord said: I presume that this Amendment is more or less covered by the same considerations which the noble Lord mentioned with regard to my previous Amendment?

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

Yes.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE

Then I do not propose to move this Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

moved to leave out Clause 5. The noble Earl said: May I ask the permission of your Lordships to take my Amendments as to Clauses 5 and 6 together, because the arguments are identical in each case, and as the hour is late I am sure your Lordships wish to deal with the Bill as rapidly as possible. If I may request the attention of your Lordships for a moment to Clauses 5 and 6, you will see that they are roughly the same except that Clause 5 applies to the catering trades whereas Clause 6 applies to what amount to garages and aircraft works. I propose to omit these two clauses, and I hope that your Lordships will consider the advisability of this step. In the first place may I suggest to the noble Earl who represents the Government that these two clauses are extraordinarily involved and extraordinarily difficult to penetrate—that perhaps their wording is not as happy as it ought to be. It is like wandering in the selva oscura of Dante, and being quite unable to find a way out. I have wrestled with both these clauses for a long time. I therefore suggest that supposing your Lordships include these clauses in the Bill, my noble friend might consult with his advisers and endeavour to render the wording more intelligible.

So far as I can make out—and I hope my noble friend will correct me if I have misunderstood the gist of these clauses—they exempt young employees in the catering trades and in garages principally (for those are the principal trades in which exemption would occur) from the provisions of the Bill either by removing the restrictions in regard to overtime which apply to other workers in the catering trades, or by excluding those occupations completely from the ambit of the Bill. May I, for instance, draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (1) of Clause 5, which seems to maintain that by giving proper notice caterers may work their employees for hours which are longer than the overtime provided earlier in the Bill for other sections of the distributive trade. In subsection (1) of Clause 6 a working week of fifty-four hours is rendered legal for men in garages or in aircraft works, as distinct from the limit of forty-eight hours that the Bill is imposing upon the employment of young persons in other branches of the distributive trades.

We cannot agree that young persons employed in the catering trades or in garages, which are the two branches of the distributive trades affected by this clause, should not enjoy, to the full extent, the protection given by this Bill to young persons in other distributive occupations. Indeed we go further and maintain that domestic workers, office boys, boys who run errands and take messages should be guaranteed by law against cruel overwork wherever they may be employed. And this makes our objection to the exemption of even a small section of those who are affected by this measure all the stronger. It is absurd that hours of work that are not allowed for adults in our basic industries should be permissible for young persons in certain occupations. I do not think it is a defensible position for anyone to maintain that because hotels and garages must be open by night as well as by day the working hours of those engaged in those places should be longer than those allowed to be worked in businesses carried on only in the daytime. That seems to be the essential distinction between the work in a garage or an hotel and the work in a shop or an ordinary retail store. We cannot see that there is any ground for the very large and extensive exemption from the protective restrictions that are embodied in the Bill, and we submit that to the noble Earl who represents the Government for his consideration.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 5.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

THE EARL OF EEVERSHAM

I am in entire agreement with the noble Earl when he says that the drafting of Clauses 5 and 6 is of a somewhat complicated nature, and that it does mean long study to understand the many provisions which they contain. I am afraid the noble Earl has perhaps got somewhat confused among those provisions. In the first place I should like to point out that the provisions as to the catering trade under Clause 5 are not exactly similar to those in regard to garages under Clause 6. Young persons employed in catering and garages do not work over the period of a year any longer hours than young persons in the distributive trades generally. It is merely, as I explained on the Second Reading, to meet the need for elasticity that was particularly pressed by the representatives of the catering establishments and the garages in order to meet the peculiar conditions of their class of business. For that reason the question of allowing special latitude to these establishments has to be considered. It was not felt possible to admit the claim, on behalf of these trades, for longer hours, but certain special adjustments were proposed to be allowed in Clauses 5 and 6, without however permitting any longer hours over the year as a whole.

In the case of the catering trade it was learned that there are periods of pressure confined to one week, such as the August Bank Holiday week, or to an athletic attraction, and that it was seldom that the periods of pressure were longer than one week. Therefore, under subsection (1) (a) of Clause 5 your Lordships will see that no young person is allowed to be employed for more than sixty hours in any one week or more than ninety-six hours during the period. That would mean that if the young person worked sixty hours in the Bank Holiday week he would only work thirty-six hours in the subsequent week. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will see that the provisions of this clause do not in any respect mean that young persons will throughout the period—a fortnightly period in the case of the catering trade or a three-weekly period in the case of garages—work for longer hours than the young persons in other distributive trades.

In the case of garages, which come under Clause 6, the overtime is not applicable to any other department than that defined in subsection (5). The noble Earl will appreciate that the intention of the clause is merely to allow garages, which are under pressure sometimes—in the case of certain garages for the whole twenty-four hours—to adjust their staff by a system of rotation whereby in certain weeks they can, if it is so desired, average more than forty-eight hours, but that in the case of the three-week period the hours will be "evened out." I hope with this explanation of the somewhat complicated clauses the noble Earl will appreciate that these exemptions are given only because of the very strong representations that were made by the catering trade and the garages and aircraft works. It was only after careful consideration that it was decided that young persons would not be put to any great burden, because they were limited in both provisions to a specified number of hours a week. In the case of garages no young person is allowed to work more than fifty-four hours a week whether with or without overtime. This has been done to meet the demands of these peculiar types of business, and I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am most grateful to my noble friend for his extremely illuminating account of the two clauses which, I must confess, I do net understand as profoundly as my noble friend. At the same time I think my general opinion that these clauses do exempt from certain protective restrictions employees in garages and the catering trade is correct. As the noble Earl himself said, there will be legally possible a sixty-hour week against which we on these Benches have continuously protested, even though the hours in subsequent weeks may be shortened in order to make up for this very strenuous period of labour, and the fifty-four-hour week similarly does apply to employees in garages—again a period of labour against which we on these Benches protest very strongly indeed. But seeing that your Lordships are not perhaps as sympathetic as we might desire towards this Amendment, I beg to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Special provisions as to the sale of accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles and cycles.

(3) A notice given under the last foregoing subsection as respects any shop may be withdrawn as from the end of any week by the occupier of the shop in such manner, at such time before the withdrawal takes effect and in such form as may be prescribed.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMmoved, in subsection (2), to leave out "as from the end of any week by the occupier of the shop in such manner, at such time before the withdrawal takes effect and in such form "and to insert" by the occupier of the shop in such manner, in such form, and subject to such conditions." The noble Earl said: The special arrangements for garages are that an owner of a garage may elect to average his hours over a period of three weeks by giving notice to the local authority. Subsection (2) provides for the withdrawal of this notice in any week by a garage owner who desires either to abandon the averaging system or to alter the hours specified in his notice. The Amendment omits the reference to "any week" which is thought to afford an undesirable amount of latitude and it further gives the Home Secretary the necessary power to prescribe the conditions under which such notices should be withdrawn by the proprietor of a garage or similar business.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 19, leave out from ("withdrawn") to ("as") in line 22 and insert ("by the occupier of the shop in such manner, in such form, and subject to such conditions").—(The Earl of Fecersham.)

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Records.

7.—(1) The occupier of any shop about the business of which young persons are employed shall in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner keep a record of the hours worked by, and of the intervals allowed for meals to, every young person employed about the business of the shop, and particulars of all employment overtime shall be separately entered in the record:

Provided that if the occupier of any shop keeps exhibited in the prescribed manner in the shop or in any department thereof notices in the prescribed form specifying the daily hours to be worked by, and intervals for rest and meals to be allowed to, young persons employed abut the business of the shop or of the department, as the case may be, he need only enter in the said record particulars of employment overtime and the hours, if any, during which any such persons as aforesaid are employed about the business of the shop, or department outside the daily hours so specified.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

moved to leave out all words after "record" in the proviso in subsection (1) and insert: any time during which any such person is employed about the business of the shop or department outside the daily hours so specified or during the intervals so specified, so, however, that any such time shall be entered as, and shall be deemed to be, overtime, unless the time was worked by that person in lieu of time not worked by him during the same week within the specified daily hours, and both the time not so worked and the time worked in lieu thereof are entered in the record.

The noble Earl said: This clause provides for records to be kept by shopkeepers. It is provided that a shopkeeper may, if he chooses, instead of keeping a record of the hours worked by his young persons, exhibit a notice in the shop specifying their daily hours. The clause as it stands does not make it clear that where a person chooses to specify the daily hours in a notice he must keep to the hours specified, unless he allows his young persons time off in lieu of any hours worked outside the specified hours. The amended words provide that any time worked outside the specified daily hours shall be counted as overtime unless the young person receives time off in lieu thereof, and that the shopkeeper shall enter in the records both the period of employment outside the specified hours and the period of time off that the young person was given.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 19, leave out from ("record") to the end, of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Special provision as to theatres.

8. The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to the employment of persons in or about a theatre except in relation to young persons employed wholly or mainly m connection with any retail trade or business carried on in the theatre; and the said provisions shall, in their application to such young persons, be subject to the modification that, in the case of a person between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years employed in a theatre where a performance is taking place which begins before and ends after ten o'clock in the evening, the interval of at least eleven consecutive hours rettuired by Section three of this Act need not include any time between ten o'clock in the evening and the time at which the performance ends.

LORD CHESHAM

moved, before "the time at which the performance ends," to insert "thirty minutes after." The noble Lord said: As the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, is unable to be here, I beg to move this Amendment which stands on the Paper in his name. The object is fairly obvious. It is to extend the time from the end of the performance for a further thirty minutes to the actual clearance of the theatre both of the performers and the audience. During that time, I understand, there is carried on a certain amount of the trading to which reference is made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 17, after ("and") insert ("thirty minutes after"). — (Lord Chesham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The effect of this Amendment would be to exempt from this clause certain persons employed in retail trade carried on in the theatre—for example, in a theatre bar, or in the caféat a cinema, or persons wholly or mainly employed in the sale of chocolates, tobacco, or refreshments—and to allow them to continue sales for thirty minutes after the performance ends. At present it is provided that no person shall sell such articles after the termination of the performance, and I do not think, in fact, that any attempt would be made to prohibit sales during a very short period afterwards, say only five or six minutes. Apart from that, the Home Office understand that what the representatives of the theatres were mainly anxious to ensure was that there should be no prohibition of sales during the last interval if that occurred or continued after ten o'clock. There appears to be no necessity for permitting employment as long as half an hour after the close of the performance. Therefore, as we do not believe that this provision will be enforced as the curtain falls, I would suggest that the noble Lord might reconsider the matter and, if necessary, propose a shorter period than that named in the present Amendment; but I do not think that any Amendment is necessary.

LORD CHESHAM

After hearing the reply of the noble Earl I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Provisions as to sanitary or other arrangements in shops.

(4) In every shop there shall be provided and maintained suitable and sufficient washing facilities available for the use of persons employed in or about the shop.

(5) Where persons employed about the business of a shop take any meals in the shop, there shall be provided and maintained suitable and sufficient facilities for the taking of those meals.

(6) If it appears to the authority whose duty it is to enforce any provision of this section that there has been, in the case of any shop, a contravention of that provision, the authority shall, by notice served on the owner or occupier of the shop, require him to take, within such time as may be limited by the notice, such action as may be specified in the notice for the purpose of securing compliance with the said provision, and if any person served with such a notice fails to comply with the requirements thereof he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues:

Provided that it shall be a defence to any proceedings under this subsection to prove that there was no contravention of the provisions of this section, or that the requirements of any such notice as aforesaid were, within a reasonable time after service of the notice, complied with in so far as they were necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this section.

LORD CHESHAM

moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert: (4) There shall be provided and maintained conveniently available for the use of persons employed in or about any shop suitable and sufficient washing facilities.

The noble Lord said: My object in moving this Amendment is to ascertain if it is considered absolutely essential to have washing facilities actually in every shop. That is a condition which it might be very difficult to enforce in many small shops, and in the case of a great many people it would be quite adequate if, as is suggested in this Amendment, there were facilities reasonably conveniently available though not necessarily actually in the shop. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Chesham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The effect of this Amendment would be to bring this subsection dealing with washing facilities into line with the subsection relating to the provision of sanitary conveniences. It is felt that the circumstances are not parallel. In the case of sanitary conveniences an obligation to instal a convenience in every shop would be a very serious matter, but in the case of washing facilities it should be possible, no matter how small the shop, to provide facilities. It would be quite easy to provide a jug of water and a basin on the premises. It would be evading the provisions directed to the welfare and health of employees in shops if proprietors were permitted to have washing facilities "conveniently available" because that might mean fifty or a hundred yards distance from the shop. In the circumstances I think it would be better to insist on the facilities being on the premises.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

moved, in subsection (5), after the first "shop," to insert "are required or permitted by their employer to." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of people who take their meals in shops. The suggestion is that a person who wishes to do that should at least first obtain the sanction of his employer to do so. In many cases the employer does not know whether his workpeople take their meals in the shop or not. It is rather hard that an employer should be compelled to make certain provisions under this Bill when he does not really know that his met are there. If they can prove that they are there for meals I understand that he can be compelled to make these provisions.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 14, after the first ("shop") insert ("are required or permitted by their employer to").—(Lord Chesham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I understand that the purpose of this Amendment is to protect the employer from being made responsible for failure to provide necessary facilities in the shop in those cases where his employees may take their meals without his consent or knowledge. It is hardly conceivable that employees can successfully insist on taking their meals in the shop if forbidden by the employer so to do, or that they can do so without his knowledge. Every employer is master of his own shop, and if he is not prepared to allow meals to be taken in his shop he can take the necessary steps to prevent it. There are numerous Orders in force under the Factory Acts requiring the occupier or employer to provide facilities for taking meals, and there is no limitation in such Orders of the kind suggested in the Amendment. Further, the Amendment might be used as a clock for attempts to evade responsibilities. For example, a shop-keeper might maintain that he need not provide facilities on the ground that, although his staff chose to take meals in the shop, he had not given them any "permission" to do so. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is wise to leave the clause as it is.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

moved, in subsection (6), after "occurs or continues," to insert "after conviction therefore" The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is really to get information as to whether if a fine is inflicted it can be made retrospective. Exactly what I mean is this. Supposing the notice of improvements required had expired, there might be a period of a month before the case could come on in Court. So far as I can see, under this Bill, supposing the Court gave its decision against the owner of the property or employer, the Court might easily say that for the period between the expiry of the notice and the time of hearing the owner is liable for a maximum of £5 for every day. I would also like to know if it is possible for magistrates in a case like that—I understand they come up frequently in magistrate's courts—to appoint a time during which the improvements required can be done before any fine starts; or does it start from the moment when the conviction is made?

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 28, at end, insert ("after conviction therefor").—(Lord Chesham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The effect of the clause as it stands is that a person who fails to comply with the notice is liable, on conviction, to a cumulative penalty of£5 for every day on which he makes default, between the expiry of the period named in the notice and the laying of the information. If after conviction he still refuses to comply with the notice, further proceedings can be taken and he will again be liable to a cumulative fine for the period between the first conviction and the laying of the second information. If, as I gather from the noble Lord, the object of the Amendment is to provide that on first conviction the defendants shall be liable to a single penalty of£5 only, and not to a cumulative penalty, and that the cumulative penalty shall only apply in the case of a second conviction for the same offence, I do not think that the single penalty of would be sufficient in a, case where the occupier had been in default for some considerable time after the notice had expired. Further, it is doubtful whether the Amendment as now drafted would really have the effect that is intended. It is certainly not clear that the conviction referred to in the Amendment is the conviction in respect of the original default and not the further conviction which would be necessary before the occupier could be fined for the continuance of the default. I think that in any case the answer is that the matter of penalty can be left to the Courts to adjust in the circumstances of each particular case. I hope that that explanation has met the noble Lord.

LORD CHESHAM

I am not quite clear about it yet, but in withdrawing my Amendment I would like to ask the Government, if it be possible, to consider a little further the desirability of making it a little bit clearer in the actual words of the clause.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

If the noble Lord agrees we will, between now and the Report stage, see if there is any confusion in the clause as it now stands, and deal with it on the next occasion, if necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Enforcement.

12.—(1) Sections thirteen and fourteen of the Shops Act, 1912, which relate to the enforcement of that Act, shall apply with respect to the provisions of this Act as they apply with respect to the provisions of that Act, and in the said sections the word "shop" shall, in their application with respect to the provisions of this Act, have the same meaning as in this Act:

Provided that—

1. (a) the said sections shall not apply with respect to the provisions of this Act in their application to street trading; and
2. (b) the provisions of this Act relating to ventilation and temperature of shops, and to sanitary accommodation, shall not be enforceable by local authorities under the provisions of the Shops Act, 1912, but this proviso shall be without prejudice to the powers and duties of inspectors appointed under that Act who shall take note of, and if necessary report to the sanitary authority for the district, any contravention of the said provisions of this Act.

(3) It shall be the duty of the sanitary authority for every district as part of their duties under the Public Health Acts to enforce the provisions of this Act relating to ventilation and temperature of shops, and to sanitary accommodation, and any inspector appointed by such an authority shall in relation to those provisions be deemed to be an inspector appointed under the Shops Act, 1912.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

moved, in subsection (1), after "this Act," immediately preceding the provisos, to insert "and shall, in relation to the provisions of this Act which apply to retail trade or business carried on in any place not being a shop, include a reference to any such place." The noble Earl said: Clause 12 applies Sections 13 and 14 of the Shops Act, 1912, which provide for enforcement by local authorities, to the provisions of the Bill, and also provides that the word "shop" shall for the purposes of enforcement have the extended meaning set out in the definition in Clause 14; that is, the definition shall include any wholesale shop and certain warehouses as defined. Under Clause 4 certain provisions of the Bill are applied to retail trade carried on "in any place not being a shop," and it is necessary for purposes of enforcement that local authorities should have the same powers in regard to these places as they have in regard to shops. The Amendment accordingly provides that these sections shall apply to these places. It is practically a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 13, at end insert ("and shall, in relation to the provisions of this Act which apply to retail trade or business carried on in any place net being a shop, include a reference to any such place").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

moved, in proviso (b), in subsection (1), to leave out "accommodation" and insert "conveniences." The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 20, leave out ("accommodation") and insert ("conveniences").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

moved, in subsection (3), after "accommodation," to insert "conveniences." The noble Earl said: This is a manuscript Amendment, and is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 38, after ("accommodation") insert ("conveniences").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 13:

Amendment of Section 17 of the Shops Act, 1912.

".—(1) The following subsection shall be added to Section seventeen of the Shops Act, 1912 (which gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations).

(2) Any regulations made under this section shall be fail before both Houses of Parliament, forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or the making of a near regulation."

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment with which I think your Lordships are familiar. We have had it raised one or twice in various Bills. Its object is to make it necessary for regulations under the Shops Act, 1912, to come before both Houses of Parliament before they are sanctioned.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The matters which have to be prescribed under the Bill relate to notices to be exhibited by persons in the catering trade, notices to be given to the local authority by owners of garages, and records of hours worked and notices of hours. There does not appear to be any necessity to lay regulations of this character before Parliament. But the noble Lord will appreciate that it has been the practice that such regulations should be laid before Parliament. I would like to emphasise, however, that this Amendment applies not only to the present Bill but it would also apply to regulations made under the Shops Act, 1912, which go further than the present Bill. It rests with the Lord Chairman to say whether it would be in order to pass such an Amendment correcting a former Act of Parliament.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The question of order is a matter for your Lordships' House.

LORD CHESHAM

In the absence of my noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame, in whose name the Amendment stands, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.