§ 3.10 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT)My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. Your Lordships will be aware that for many years it has been widely agreed that the law on shop closing hours has been in need of revision. The long and short of it is that the present law is a farrago of nonsense, and much of it is virtually unenforceable. It has even got to the stage of becoming a fruitful source of music hall jokes—not all of them, I am afraid, very respectable. It has been heavily criticised in Parliament, by local authorities, and by the courts. And the Lord Chief Justice himself said recently that it was "high time that something was done about the law." I hope I can convince your Lordships' House that this Bill does it.
The present law about shops is contained largely in the Shops Act, 1950, which embodies a variety of other enactments. Some go back as far as 1911, and some even go back as far as the Sunday Fairs Act, 1448, which, I am sorry to say, will disappear as the result of the passing of this new Bill. It is important to bear in mind the reason for the passing of earlier legislation. During the last century, factory workers' very long hours became steadily shorter, whilst shopkeepers' hours grew longer and longer. In 1880, factory hours were about 60 a week. Shop hours of work were 85 to 100 for shop assistants and the majority of small shopkeepers. In the year 1901, the proprietor of a newspaper shop told a Select Committee of your Lordships' House: 676
Ours is a terrible trade. Life is not worth living with the hours we have, and the same business would be done if we closed early, but it must be compulsory by law to close early. It would never be brought about otherwise.Mutual attempts by shopkeepers over the years to agree among themselves on earlier closing have always been defeated, unfortunately, by the fact that a few people failed to agree or departed from the agreement. Working hours in the shop world became tolerable only when closing hours were regulated by law. Those of your Lordships who remember the H. G. Wells' novel Kipps will recall that it contains a vivid picture of what those conditions formerly were. Shop legislation, therefore, is for the benefit of all branches of the community—shop keepers, their assistants and, indeed, the public. We hope that it will be even more so when the present law is amended.Conditions, of course, have greatly changed in the last fifty years. Many shops close earlier than the statutory evening hours. However, the full consultations that we have had with everyone concerned in this matter show quite clearly the need for continuing legislation, so long as much-needed amendments are made. When that need became clear to the Government of the day and the then Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, they appointed a Committee under Sir Ernest Gowers (which is a thing Governments often do) to inquire into the matter and to investigate the whole question of shop hours. The Gowers Committee considered that legislation was still very necessary. I should like here to pay my tribute to Sir Ernest Gowers and his Committee for their fine work and for their Report, which is a most interesting social document. The best thanks we can give to Sir Ernest and his Committee is, I think, the fact that a large proportion of their recommendations have been included in the present Bill
The Bill attempts to strike a fair balance between everybody concerned—the shopkeepers, their assistants, the local authorities and the shopping public. I am afraid that there is bound to be some conflict when there are four such divergent interests concerned. We cannot please everybody, and we do not pretend that we have succeeded in doing so; nor have we been able to get rid of all the anomalies, though I hope that we have 677 been able to get rid of a large number. There are, for instance, still some anomalies in the law about mixed shops, about which I will say a word in a moment. But we think that we have hit upon the best solution that can be found. Here may I ask your Lordships to note that the Bill does not affect conditions of health and comfort, or physical conditions of work in any non-industrial places of work, including shops, or the hours of employment of young persons. All these are wider subjects, to be dealt with when the rest of the decisions of the Gowers Committee are considered
Briefly, the aims of the Bill are to bring the law up to date and into repute again, to clarify it and to remove anomalies. No new major principle is embodied in the Bill. We are attempting to make the law more flexible and precise in order to cope with all the vast variation in the needs and conditions of the shopping world, from Selfridge's on Christmas Eve to the little village shop miles off the beaten track. Your Lordships will realise at once that if we are to meet these needs we must have flexibility and precision, and must remove as many as possible of the doubts which have bedevilled this subject for so many years. That is the reason why this Bill is long and complicated.
May I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill? If I touch on only a few of the provisions, I hope that I shall be acquitted of any discourtesy or charge of neglect of my duty, because this is really a Committee Bill; it is only on Committee stage that we can go into the large number of details. The amount of major principle involved, I think I shall be able to convince your Lordships, is small. Part I of the Bill, perhaps the most important, deals with trading hours on weekdays. Clause I prescribes the general evening closing hour. The general rule will now be that all shops must close not later than 7 o'clock iii the evening, and at 1 p.m. on early closing day. There will be one late day a week, and in future the closing hour on that day will be 8 p.m. That is the general rule, but, of course, as one would imagine, the Bill contains exceptions for places which may stay open much later for general convenience—places like restaurants, chemists' shops, garages, 678 shops at airports and, I may add, undertakers. These exceptions are set out in the Schedules, to which I will come in a moment or two
Local authorities can make closing time an hour earlier if they wish, but not later. The Gowers Committee and the Government have thought this matter over carefully. The present times—that is, 8 o'clock normally, and 9 o'clock on one late day—are almost unanimously considered to be too late; and, as your Lordships know, the vast majority of shops close usually by 6 o'clock, if not earlier. Sometimes that is very inconvenient to the shopping public. Here again, we have a clash of interest between the shopkeepers and the shopping public. We have carefully considered all representations made for a still earlier closing hour—incidentally, we have had none for a later closing hour—and we are convinced that the Gowers Committee are right. A social survey which was available to the Committee has shown that the proposals we are putting forward will be welcomed by the vast majority of the shopping public.
May I touch for a moment on one point which is not really the concern of this Bill as drafted hut which is always raised? People say, "Whit about the one-man business, the little business employing nobody but members of the family—why cannot they stay open as long as they want?" This question goes back into history, to the days when Mr. Churchill (as he then was) was Home Secretary. It is interesting to note that whenever this point has come up before the majority in Parliament and in public have always been strongly against it. The idea is superficially attractive, and people point to the fact that it is done in France and in America; but when we go into the question more carefully, we find that here it would not work; nor is it in the interests of most family businesses. The National Chamber of Trade tell us that most family shops want the protection given to them under the Bill and do not want the right to stay open as long as they choose.
I turn to Clause 4, which makes special provision and lays down special times for holiday resorts and other places with exceptional seasonal fluctuations. This is designed to help the tourist trade, Clause 11 and the part of Clause 18 that 679 goes with it are concerned with the vexed question of the mixed shop—that is, the shop which sells a variety of goods which are subject to a variety of different rules and regulations. I suppose the typical example is the ordinary village shop, which is also a splendidly British institution. One fine example that we came across is that of a shop in Cornwall, which not only sells everything under the sun, as most of these shops do, but has in its window a proud little placard announcing, "Steamroller for sale." In that type of shop the confusion in the law is most evident. Until 8 o'clock in the evening you can buy anything. Until 9.30 p.m. you can buy sweets and tobacco, if the shop has been licensed by the local authority for the sale of tobacco. Certain articles of food for immediate consumption, including partly cooked tripe, which is specifically provided for in the Second Schedule of the 1950 Act, may be bought up to midnight —but not a packet of salt to go with the tripe. At one minute past midnight you can buy anything, if you can persuade the shopkeeper to open up, because that is a new day, and the law is not concerned with opening hours but only with closing hours.
All this ridiculous rigmarole has brought the law into disrepute, and it enrages shoppers and shopkeepers alike. Lord Hewart, when he was Lord Chief Justice, said in 1939:
It might be possible but I doubt if it would be easy to compress into the same number of lines more fertile opportunities for doubt and error.I expect, too, that your Lordships will have seen the recent case before the Queen's Bench Divisional Court, where the Court agreed, and thought it impossible to say that a raw kipper could not be a meal or a refreshment In the course of duty I have myself tried, and I can sec that it might conceivably be a meal, but not by the remotest stretch of judicial imagination could it be called a refreshment. The fact is as all these cases show, that the law is widely disregarded and in disrepute.The solution that we have decided upon in our Bill is that recommended by the Gowers Committee. It seems to be reasonable that people who want to buy a snack and take it away should be able 680 to do so. There is, of course, no trouble about restaurants' staying open, because they are a law unto themselves. What we have decided, instead of relying on all these inconclusive definitions, is that the Secretary of State shall draw up a list of particular refreshments which can be varied to suit different times, different customs and different parts of the country, and be varied as circumstances change. He will do this in consultation with local authorities and with everybody else concerned. We hope by this more flexible procedure to make things easier not only for the shopkeeper but for the law-abiding citizen as well.
Clause 12 of the Bill prohibits persons who trade from vans or barrows from trading at times when shops could not be open for the sale of the same type of goods. The barrow boy, of course, does not pay rates, and this matter has been the subject of a certain amount of friction in the past: but I think that this new provision in Clause 12 will be satisfactory and fair to everybody. Part II of the Bill deals with Sunday trading in England and Wales, and tidies up the law and makes it more sensible and consistent. It will obviously not be acceptable to the Lord's Day Observance Society, who I believe have circulated certain suggestions to your Lordships. I ought to point out, however, that the increases in Sunday trading which this Bill allows are quite insignificant, and it is done only to help the tourist trade and to deal with the problem of staggered holidays. Her Majesty's Government are not anxious unnecessarily to increase Sunday trading.
Part III of the Bill tidies up the rules which apply to traders who wish to observe the Jewish Sabbath. These rules are extremely complicated and what we have now done is to simplify them. They have worked reasonably well in the past, and I think they will continue to work well. What we have done, which is important in a small way, is to extend these rules and concessions to the Muslim community in this country, which now numbers upwards of 50,000 people. That, I believe, will be a useful concession. Part IV of the Bill, Clause 36, contains one of the more exotic provisions. It prohibits anybody but a person of the Jewish religion from carrying on the business of a barber or hairdresser on Sunday in Scotland. My noble friend 681 Lord Strathclyde will be winding up the debate and will no doubt be able to explain that subtle matter to any of your Lordships who may be puzzled by it.
Part V of the Bill provides for more flexibility for certain holidays and also for an improvement in the conditions of shop assistants. I should add that it is not a substitute for collective bargaining between employers and trade unions. Part VI contains provisions about administration and various other detailed matters. Here also we have the only important departure from the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. The Gowers Committee suggested that the administration of and responsibility for the previsions of this Bill should be largely concentrated in the hands of Government Departments, but we want to give as mach responsibility as possible to local authorities. Your Lordships will be familiar with the expression, "Town hall, not Whitehall." These provisions of the Bill are a notable example of that principle.
The first four Schedules to the Bill deal with the exemptions from the procedure which I have already described to your Lordships; that is, chemists' shops and restaurants, which are exempted from early closing, from evening closing and from certain conditions of Sunday closing. The Fifth Schedule rationalises the procedure to be followed by local authorities in making orders under the Bill and deals, in particular, with voting procedure.
As I have said, this Bill is essentially a Committee stage Bill, and I have touched upon only half a dozen of the more important general principles. I hope your Lordships will go through the Bill carefully, and will give us your assistance on the Committee stage in improving it, where necessary, and in threshing out some of the details. I may say here that I understand it has been arranged, through the usual channels, to suit the convenience of noble Lords opposite, that the Committee stage shall be taken some considerable time hence, to enable everybody to have time to study this rather detailed Bill. I hope, however, that, even if we may argue about a dotted "i" and crossed "t" here and there, the general principles of the Bill will commend themselves to the House 682 as constituting a sensible and much-needed measure of social reform. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ 3.28 p.m.
§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGORMy Lords, in the first place, I should like to extend to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, sincere thanks for his clear explanation of the provisions of this Bill. It is, not a Bill that will create any excitement, although I remember that in 1909, in the debate referred to by the noble Lord, there was a little excitement, and sufficient to delay the Bill so long in your Lordships' House that it had to be withdrawn and brought forward during a later Session. 'The reason was, I think, that in 1909, 1910 and 1911 your Lordships' House was very much concerned about its own existence and its future powers, with the result that during that period most Bills from the other place were treated not too kindly.
The other day I was reading lord Samuel's Memoirs, in which he refers to the Shops Bill (as it thin was). I am tempted to read to your Lordships a paragraph from those Memoirs. With pardonable pride the noble, Viscount refers to the vast achievements of that Liberal Government of 1906 up to the 1914 War. The passage that struck me says:
The Government was introducing and passing into law one constructive measure after another, until a record of social legislation was achieved which has never been approached in an equal period, before or since. Asquith, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, provided the finance for the wholly new system of old-age pensions, and as Prime Minister, carried it into law. Churchill, at the Board of Trade established the Labour Exchanges, saving unemployed an infinity of time and trouble in the search for work … also, after he had become Home Secretary, the first important Bill dealing with the excessive hours of labour in shops, securing to all assistants a weedy half-day holiday.That was the first time I had learnt that among the many other things for which we are grateful to Sir Winston Churchill, is the fact that he was responsible for introducing the first half-day holiday for any workers.683 As regards the present Bill, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is to wind up the debate, that we shall not delay, but will facilitate, its passage, although we shall take advantage of the Committee stage to make certain proposals which we think will improve it. As to the Gowers Report, I should like it to be remembered that it was in 1946 that this Committee was set up. Things were vastly different in 1946 from what they are to-day, and I do not think that to say these proposals are based on the Report is sufficient justification for them. Ration books, coupons, were a regulating force in shops in those days, but that is no longer the case.
§ LORD MANCROFTWill the noble Lord forgive me if I interrupt? If he reads the Committee's Report, he will realise that they bore that in mind, and specifically intimated that they were not legislating for those restrictive conditions, but always had in mind legislation brought in when rationing had gone and normal conditions had returned.
§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGORI know. I have that by me, and I will make a reference to it later. It is quite true that they saw the possibility of vast changes, but I hope the Government have done something more than go back to the Gowers Report. I hope that, prior to introducing the Bill, consultations have taken place with interested parties. There are many parties. I should like to know to what extent consultations have taken place with them as regards present-day conditions. It was utterly impossible for the Gowers Committee—and I wish to pay my tribute to the grand work they did—to visualise to-day's position. Therefore I trust that the Government have had consultations with the main interested parties in order to understand present-day conditions. I am not sure that they have, because I know of a good number of organisations who ought to be consulted and who are opposed to the primary proposal of the 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock closing. I hope we shall be told which parties have been consulted regarding fixing 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock on the late night.
There are trade unions involved here, and I have been in contact with them, 684 as anybody on this side of the House would be. They have made their proposals known to me and they are certainly not proposals included in this Bill. When one realises the number of organisations in this country who are intimately interested in a proposal of this kind and knows of their attitude towards the proposal, one wonders which of the interested parties is behind the Bill. I have been supplied with information by the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations. Here let me say, in case some noble Lord is not fully aware of it, that this is by far the most representative organisation in the country of housewives and women working in industry. The T.U.C. are unanimously against the seven o'clock and eight o'clock closing. The Co-operative Movement—and let me say, as a past President of the Co-operative Society, that here is an obvious place where you would find complaints; the quarterly meeting is a forum for complaints from members—are unanimously against it. The Early Closing Association, long identified with the question of hours in shops, are against it. I will give the organisations who are against it, and these are important national trade organisations. They include the National Federation of Grocers and Provision Dealers Associations; the Scottish Grocers' and Provision Merchants Association; the National Federation of Fishmongers, including poultry and game traders; the National Federation of Meat Traders Associations; the National Dairymen's Association; the Incorporated National Federation of Boot Trades Association, and others.
So far as we are concerned, it is no use quoting the Gowers Report as the reason for the proposals in this Bill. What we want to know is: have these organisations which I have enumerated been consulted regarding present-day conditions? If they have, would somebody tell us what views they expressed? My information is that all the organisations I have read out are unanimously against the suggested changes in this Bill. It is no use going back to some Report of ten years ago and telling us what fine fellows they were. We know they did a fine job of work, but that is not sufficient evidence for us to accept this change. The noble Lord has not suggested that somebody will be handicapped if we do not make the change. We agree that there are two 685 sides to the matter, and that we ought to pass legislation which will do justice to both sides of the counter. There is no question of that. But what we want to know is who it is who suggests that anybody is suffering an injustice to-day. What organisation suggests that somebody is suffering an injustice and that we must by all means bring legislation to remove the injustice to some section of the population?
The interests of from 15 million to 20 million customers must be safeguarded, if at all possible. Also, the interests of 2 million shop workers must be safeguarded. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not easy to get agreement. I am only asking whether there has been a serious attempt of recent date to get agreement, and not merely reliance placed on a Report made in different circumstances by a body of men who did a good job of work and who tried to anticipate what things would be like in five or ten year' time, which is an impossible thing to do. That Report, to my mind, is not sufficient justification for this Bill. I hope we shall keep in mind that if we get 2 million disgruntled shop workers because of these changes, things will not be any better in the shops as a result.
The contention of the trade union mainly responsible for shop workers is that with the present closing hours of 6 o'clock and 7 o'clock you can do justice to all the customers. I have submitted evidence from organisations intimately interested in this question, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can give some indication of an attempt made to find out what is wanted to-day in to-day's conditions. I wish to come now to one equally important matter, the weekly half-day.
LORD GIFFORDBefore the noble Lord passes from that point, may I say that I was interested in it and I gather that he feels that the curtailing of the closing hours from 8 p.m. to 7 p.m. on ordinary nights and from 9 p.m. to 8 p.m. on late nights is unnecessary. Is it the point that he thinks that restriction is unnecessary?
§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGORI agree that this Bill is very much a Committee stage Bill, and when we get to the Committee stage we 686 will move certain Amendments,. Instead of "7 o'clock" we shall move to insert "6 o'clock," and instead of "8 o'clock" we shall move to insert "7 o'clock." We will move those Amendments on behalf of the organisations most interested.
§ LORD MANCROFTThe noble Lord is saying that we ought to shorten the work hours by two hours instead of one.
§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGORWe arc asking that justice should be done to both sides. I agree that six from eight is two, if that is what the noble Lord is trying to tell me. 'The point I am making is that justice should be done to the customers and the shopworkers by bringing the hours down to 6 o'clock for the ordinary weekday and 7 o'clock for the late-night day.
The provision regarding the half-day a week is an interference which I do not understand at all, and I am certain it was not made as a result of consultation. Who is responsible for the suggestion that it would be a good thing to change it? The closing-hour on that day is normally understood to he 1 o'clock, but the Bill introduces the hour of 1.30. What is worse is that the Bill provides that at whatever hour they start, the half-holiday can start 4½ hours later. A shop manager may say to one of his shopworkers: "Would you mind coming in at 11 o'clock and working until and you may then take your half-day." That is contrary to what was previously thought, throughout the whole of the shop world, to be the half-day holiday right. It was never in their minds to split up in that way. I do not know who in the world thought of that one. It is most unfair. That is not the conception that we have of a half-day holiday. Many noble Lords in this House, and others outside this House, do not agree with that interpretation of what is a half-day's holiday, but it is in this Bill. We shall ask for that to go out too, and I hope we shall succeed. If it can be shown that some big body interested in shops made irresistible representations and the Government accepted them, show us that; but we have yet to be shown.
There is one other matter I might mention in passing. There is a difficulty with the pharmaceutical section. It is a difficult section. I know it well. I have 687 had to handle this difficulty many times before. It is particularly difficult in regard to Clause 43 (2). I would ask here that there may be further consultation. There has been some consultation on this question, and I would ask that if there are consultations at present, there should be a continuation of them. The employers' organisations, the representatives of the workers' unions, the Home Office and the Ministry of Health are all concerned. I ask that conferences, if now taking place, should continue, and that some easement of this problem should be obtained before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book. The proposals contained in the Bill do not give satisfaction. I ask for an attempt to be made to get agreement on that part of the Bill.
As regards Clause 51, we on this side of the House and our colleagues in another place consider that in many instances where the word "may" is used it should be replaced by the word "shall". Inspections can be a farce. They have been a farce on many occasions in some industries. We prefer that the Bill should not provide for inspections at all if those inspections are not to be serious. The word "may" in the Bill will not do what should be done regarding real serious inspections. Inspections in this connection are of vital importance. I shall, on Committee stage, move to delete "may" and insert "shall" in that clause of the Bill.
If that is done, it will be a much better Bill and will make inspections a reality and not a pretence. We think that local authorities ought to be encouraged to do all they possibly can. I agree with the Report. It is easy to find fault. Certain local authorities seem to turn a blind eye to some things that are happening. They have passed through a very difficult time indeed. I suggest that this Bill should, so far as possible, give local authorities still greater power.
I come now to the question of Sunday work. Again, have there been any consultations with anybody on this question? I know our attitude towards Sunday work is determined very largely by our attitude towards Sunday. The noble Lord was quite right: I received a communication on the proposed Shops Bill from the Lord's Day Observance Society. I was not surprised to get it. After all, this is 688 an organisation which has a certain conception of Sunday. Noble Lords and myself may have different conceptions of Sunday; but I agree that Shops Bills in the past have rather favoured this agitation. I am not sure whether the secularisation of Sunday is a good thing. Many believe that what is right for a week-day is not right for a Sunday That is a matter for each of us; but frankly, I am sorry that the Government have thought it necessary to interfere at all on this issue.
They have not had much guidance from the Gowers Committee on this matter. The Gowers Committee fought shy of it, and I am not surprised, because they saw the problem from another aspect—an aspect which we should find it difficult to deal with. I should like to read two sentences from paragraph 101 of the Report, showing their attitude towards Sunday as a day in the week:
Before turning to the question how it should be amended we must point out that in considering the Sunday Act we are confronted by two difficulties that were not present when we were dealing with the other two. One is that the policy underlying Sunday closing depends in part on spiritual questions that evoke deep feeling and admit of no authoritative expression of opinion except after weighing a body of evidence that has not been necessary for the rest of our task. The other difficulty, which is quite insuperable, is that there has been no experience of the working of the Sunday Act in normal circumstances…That is a statement which was made at the end of 1946. We are now nearly at the end of 1956. The question I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is this: has there been sufficient experience in the last ten years to justify the changes suggested regarding Sunday in this Shops Bill? Is that the reason that these amendments of the old Act come to be in this Bill? The Gowers Committee hesitated because we had not had sufficient experience. We have now had ten years' additional experience. Is that additional experience the reason why this amendment regarding Sunday work in shops has been put into this Bill?That is how we feel about the Bill. We are friendlily disposed towards it. There is no danger of our doing anything to hinder or delay the passage of this Bill, but we are anxious that these matters should be dealt with. I am giving an intimation of what we shall try to do on the Committee stage. In the meantime, we have ample time—as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said, it will be after 689 Christmas before we see the Bill again—to have the necessary consultations to try to get this Bill into good shape, acceptable both to this House and to those closely associated with shops all over the country. There are over half a million shops in this country. If we can get agreed legislation, it will be far better for those on both sides of the counter.
§ 3.48 p.m.
§ LORD GRANTCHESTERMy Lords, I do not wish at this stage to raise matters which can be dealt with more appropriately on the Committee stage of this Bill if it goes forward in its present form. I want to come straight to the fundamental question which the Gowers Committee passed over; namely, if the shop assistants are protected from over-long hours—and it is made clear that this Bill is not a Dill to protect shop workers— why should shopkeepers not have freedom to arrange their opening and closing hours to suit the convenience of the public who are their customers?
There is no evidence that the Gowers Committee or Her Majesty's Government have been at all worried about this question of inconvenience to the public. I should like to ask what evidence has been taken from the public, in addition to the questions which the noble Lord. Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, asked. To-day, every office worker and every factory worker complains of the difficulty of doing any shopping, owing to existing hours. There is continuous talk of staggering hours of work in offices to relieve transport congestion. Such discussions would be greatly facilitated if shop hours were made more flexible. If a uniform closing hoar is fixed, the individual shopkeeper is deprived of the greatest advantage that he has in competition with the big store or the multiple shop.
The Gowers Committee, in their Report, refer to the discussions which took place in your Lordships' House in 1928. It was then argued that to compel a one-man shopkeeper to conform to a compulsory closing time was an unwarrantable interference with his freedom. It was argued on the other side that it was necessary to include him for his own protection and because, if he were excluded, the Bill would be unworkable. The Gowers Committee therefore concluded that a uniform closing hour was settled policy and needed no recon- 690 sideration. I should like to ask your Lordships to dissent from this conclusion.
Is it not time that we stopped legislating for the so-called protection of adult citizens upon such a matter as the opening and closing hours of their shops? A shopkeeper is there to study the needs of his customers, and if a shopkeeper were allowed to do so there would be greater flexibility in the closing hours of shops. I plead for the freedom to which the small shopkeeper is entitled: and I plead also for the consumer, because shopkeepers exist to serve the public. If the hours of employees are limited, this freedom for the shopkeeper can do no harm to anyone, and it certainly helps the small man to study the service which he offers to his customers in his fight for survival against the larger establishments. This Bill not only fails in justice to the small shopkeeper, but seeks still further to curtail the existing hours by still stronger and compulsory powers. I hope that the Bill will he redrafted to give greater freedom, and not less freedom, to the small shopkeeper in the matter of opening and closing hours. How unpopular and misconceived is this attempt to cur tail freedom is shown by the evasion of tile regulations to which the Gowers Committee draw attention. I am surprised' that Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to suppress this "resistance movement" instead of recognising its justification.