§ 4.6 p.m.
§ Debate on Second Reading continued.
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, I welcome in general terms the introduction of the Shops Bill into your Lordships' House. What is being done with regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has called the "tidying up and simplifying" of the extensive and varied legislation under which shops at present conduct their trade is most desirable, even though it means the abolition of the fifteenth century Fairs Act, with its robust medieval flavour. I also welcome this Bill because of the attempt which is made in it to help the tourist trade. As your Lordships know, I have on many occasions emphasised in this House how very necessary it is that everything possible should be done to help this trade, which brings to this country so much valuable foreign currency, and, in particular, dollar currency.
Having said that, I would say that I agree, to some extent, with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, about the fact that the Bill is based on the Report of the Gowers Committee, which is now ten years out of date. I should like, however, to look at this matter from a rather different aspect. I found it rather difficult to understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor was driving at, but I understand that he wants to restrict the hours during which shops are open even more than they are cut by this Bill. I feel that insufficient attention is paid in the Bill to the needs of the general public. I would point out that in the past ten years there has been a great change in the needs of the public There are large numbers of customers who are now in full-time employment; and in many households the wife is also working full-time. Even if she is not, if she has a large, or even a medium-sized, house, she has to spend a great deal of time on her domestic duties and is not free to shop more or less at any time she likes, as she was able to do some years ago.
In view of this minor social revolution, I feel that it is most important that as full provision as possible should be made for shopping outside normal working hours. In this connection, many stores 697 have found that their late shopping night is becoming more and more popular, arid that the business transacted between 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m.—the late closing time chosen by many big stores—is very considerable. It shows the necessity for giving these late shopping opportunities to the public. I think that sometimes the shop is treated on a wrong basis. After all, nobody suggests that hotels, restaurants and places of entertainment should be open only during normal working hours. Yet the shop also is really a public amenity. Again, staggering of shop hours would do an immense amount to solve the traffic problem, which, as noble Lords know, is getting more arid more acute during peak hours. I am not going to say anything about the one-man business. I agree that that is a vexed question. On first thoughts, one would say that a man owning a business, employing no labour, and wishing to work long hours himself, should be able to please himself and to do as he wishes in that respect. There is a lot to be said for fiat argument, but the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has put the case very fairly, and I realise that the difficulties are formidable.
One thing in the Bill which I do not like is the provision that the choice of a late shopping night is to lie with the local authority — at least that is how I understand it. It seems to me that, provided the individual retail establishment keeps to the regulations with regard to hours, it ought to be able to open its doors on a day or at times which by experience have been found best to suit the convenience of the general public. It may well be that a different night is more suitable for the public in one part of a borough than in another. So I feel that the retailer ought to be given as much freedom as possible with regard to hours and to the late shopping night.
I believe that there is very little fear these days of shop assistants being exploited in any way, and I would suggest (though I know that it is outside the scope of the Bill) that the best form of protection would be to regulate the hours of the individual worker and not necessarily the hours at which the shop may open to the public. The store can thus quite easily, by staggering hours and employing part-time workers, cover the greatest number of hours. per week possible within the regulations. I would 698 mention that, with the tremendous burden of rating and overhead expenses that exists these days, it is essential that the machine of the shop, in order to pay its way, should be running the maximum number of hours. It is much the same as a factory, which cannot possibly be run economically unless valuable machines are running for the maximum number of hours, instead of lying idle for the greater part of the week. Having said that, I would add that, as other noble Lords have said, the points raised are mainly ones which can be dealt with in Committee. I do, however, beg the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, not to forget the interests of the general public when this Bill is being considered in detail.
§ 4.14 p.m.
§ LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAXMy Lords, it is not often that I speak in your Lordships' House: so much of my time is taken up with National Savings work. In that capacity, I try to some extent to look after the small man's savings. I speak to-day on behalf of the small shopkeeper, who I feel is the one most affected by this Bill. If one asks oneself with whose interest the Bill is mostly concerned, one realises that it is certainly not the public and, it seems to me. certainly not the small shopkeeper, who is generally a self-employed man, I can understand the multiple firms—the C.W.S. and the larger stores—being in favour of this Bill, but I cannot forget that my own business started in a little retail shop the year I was born. It was started by my father, who gave to it "all he knew". And many of the successful industries in this country to-day started in the same way.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and other noble Lords who have spoken that we must he careful in examining this Bill, in view of the fact that the Gowers Committee's Report was issued so long ago. I say that not so much from the point of view which the noble Lord has stressed as because of the fact that conditions of trade were so utterly different in 1946. In 1946, shops were often open only for a few hours a day, because they had no goods to sell. Their shelves were often empty. Everyone was short of supplies, as the noble Lord has said. To-day, conditions are entirely different, and most industries need increased sales to maintain their factories and plants at efficient 699 levels, which in turn affects costs and prices at home, and costs and prices in relation to export. Every shop hour is important from the point of view of disposing of the products of industry, and knocking an hour off shop hours would knock a certain percentage off the total output of the industries concerned. In other words, rather than have more restrictive practices, we ought to have more freedom, so that industry, including shops, can do a real job of work.
If, however, we are to have a new Shops Act, then the present measure is a reasonable attempt at cleaning up the legislation on these matters. In particular, it is clear that it represents an important improvement over existing legislation in removing a number of ambiguities and, more generally, in making the legislation more specific. At the same time, I am glad to see that the Government have resisted the pressure for a closing, hour for shops even earlier than the hour of 7 o'clock laid down in the Bill. I think that would be disastrous: I would rather see it later. I hope that your Lordships will endorse this proposal for a closing hour no earlier than seven.
In its very nature, shops legislation must be a compromise in two respects. First, it is necessary to compromise between the need, on the one hand, for as much simplification as possible and, on the other, the need to avoid over-simplification in dealing with so many diverse trades, many of which have special problems of their own. Secondly, shops legislation must be a compromise between the reasonable requirements of the shopkeeper and the reasonable needs of the public; beyond a certain point we cannot have it both ways. I feel that this Bill goes as far as is reasonable to help the shopkeeper and that, in the words of the Gowers Report, it is now the public's turn for consideration. If the Government had accepted a policy of going further and further in an attempt to protect the shopkeeper, we might well have gone down the slippery slope to the position which exists in countries like Australia and New Zealand, where the factories and offices usually work a five-day week and the shops have the same five-day week, with approximately the same closing hours. The result there is that employers are almost bound to give 700 their workers, particularly married women, time off for shopping during the five days, and therefore some factories have little more than a four-and-a-half day week. And the public's convenience is scarcely considered at all.
I also welcome the clear division in the Bill between the need to ensure reasonable shop hours and the need to protect the conditions of work of shop assistants. It is not sufficiently realised, perhaps, that these are separate issues; therefore it is right that this Bill, after dealing with certain special features of the welfare of shop assistants, leaves the remaining conditions to be dealt with by negotiation between employers and assistants or by separate legislation.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one point on which the provisions of the present legislation are not retained, and where I think that they ought to be retained. This relates to the sale of chocolate and sugar confectionery. Your Lordships are well aware of my own interest in that particular trade, and I make no apology for raising this matter in this House, because it seems to me one in which the wishes of the whole trade are fully consistent with the needs of the public. The subject has been considered on many occasions, not only by the retail confectioners but by the wholesalers and manufacturers as well, and there has always been full support for not reducing the present hours during which confectionery may be sold from ordinary shops. This is a detail which I should like to raise at the Committee stage. I would end by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on his clear exposition of a difficult subject, and you, my Lords, on your patience.
§ 4.21 p.m.
§ LORD POLWARTHMy Lords, after the brilliant and witty speech with which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, introduced this somewhat dry and dusty subject and the knowledgeable contributions from noble Lords experienced in this matter, I hesitate to intervene in this debate. I must admit that I cannot claim any sort of personal interest, because shopping is not an activity in which I indulge if I can possibly avoid it. I think, however, that it would be a pity, after the special reference by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to the Scottish application of 701 this Bill, if there were not one contribution from the Back Benches from a Scottish Member. The noble Lord referred to Clause 36, which constitutes a whole Part of the Bill, concerned with making it impossible to have one's hair cut in Scotland on Sunday. I have never been aware of any deep desire on the part of the Scots to have their hair cut on Sundays, and I can only assume that the noble Lord must have found evidence of some deep-seated and concealed desire to do so from the fact that it has taken practically two pages of the draftsman's art—if your Lordships will study that part of the Bill in detail, you will agree with me that it is a brilliant and intricate piece of draftsmanship—to achieve that object.
We in Scotland, as you in England, are bound to welcome any measure which gives justified protection to one section of the community, and I think this measure does give a justified protection to those who work in shops. There has been criticism on some sides that the protection did not extend further, to an earlier closing hour. I would say that we are bound to afford protection to the customer as well as to the shop assistant. There has been talk about the need for women who are in employment to have time to shop. From my own experience as an employer of labour in an office, I am well aware of the difficulty of seeing that employees have time to carry out essential shopping. I think it extends not only to women in industry, where the emphasis is usually placed, but also to men who, after all, from time to time are obliged to do shopping on their own.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, dismissed a little brusquely the experience of America, where, as we know, there is a tendency towards late opening on certain nights and to extended opening. Great use is made of these facilities, as I saw for myself when I was there this summer. As the standard of life of any country rises, there is a greater demand for this type of facility, and I think we must keep our eyes open and see that we do not adjust hours too rigidly in this respect.
As regards Scotland, the clause which I think will be of the greatest help is Clause 4, which extends the provisions enabling local authorities to ease the restrictions on closing hours. This will 702 be of particular help to one of our growing interests, the tourist trade. As may be known to some noble Lords who have taken a holiday in Scotland, particularly in the North, where the hours of daylight are much longer than they are here in the South, there is a definite need for later hours of shopping to be made possible. This applies not only to the tourist industry, although that, of course, will benefit, but also to the many communities in the North and the North-West where life largely revolves around the arrival of the daily bus or the daily boat. Often the hours of arrival of some of these vehicles are very strange. For instance, in some of the Outer Isles the boat arrives between 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning and the whole place is awake and buzzing, thong) it would be difficult to find anyone out and about before 10 or 11 o'clock in the middle of the morning after that. So it is a. good thing that there should be an increased flexibility for these outlying parts of the country. With those few remarks I welcome the Bill, though I have no doubt that the Committee stage, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, will be a long and dusty business.
§ 4.27 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHI L WORTHMy Lords, it is a sign of the times in which we live, when our minds are diverted to far more serious things, that a Bill of the importance of this one should have attracted such a sparse attendance in your Lordships' House. The Bill contains 76 clauses and five Schedules. It affects the lives of every citizen, of every age, from the small child who goes to buy a pennyworth of sweets to people like the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who occasionally goes shopping on his own. This is also a Bill which has been introduced for the first time in your Lordships' House. I share with all noble Lords their jealous regard for the House as an ideal Chamber for the consideration and revision of legislation such as this. I sincerely hope that this Bill will receive the thorough examination which all Bills receive in this House and that it will leave your Lordships' House a credit to it, as much legislation has done in the past.
I am rather disturbed over this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, introduced it, if he will permit me to say 703 so, in rather a light-hearted way—not that, in serious times such as these, that is not acceptable. He said that it replaced an Act which was a "farrago of nonsense". I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that the Report from which the Bill stems is thoroughly out of date. I do not think that the Bill itself matches the need of the times. And that surprises me, because in my view this is a very serious question. After all, it affects not only every person in this country who has to shop and obtain the wherewithal to live, but also hundreds of thousands of employees.
I think we should have had a better Bill if, as my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor suggested, during the preparation of the Bill there had been consultation with the unions concerned. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he comes to reply, will be able to answer the question whether there was or was not official consultation with the unions. I have had some experience, not in retail shop administration, but as a chairman of a national joint industrial council that dealt with a large service industry, and I have always found that the unions were not only ever alert to safeguard the interests of their members but also very conscious of the fact that a retail shop is an intermediary between the producer and the consumer, and that retail trade can exist only so long as it gives a proper and adequate service to the consumer. That is what it exists for. In other words, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, the public do not exist for the benefit of retail trade; retail trade exists for the purpose of serving the public.
My feeling is that this Bill fails lamentably to get to the root of the matter. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who first said (and it was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax) that what we must remember is that every employee in a shop, in a factory or anywhere else, is a shopper at some time, and only the idle rich— and they are so few now that they almost do not count— have time to shop when it suits a shop to open. While we are thinking of staggering opening hours of shops, surely we should think of staggering the hours that are available 704 for people who want to use those shops. In my private capacity as an employer of labour of some dimensions, I have always been told that the female content of my businesses must have special consideration with regard to their hours at work, so that they may shop. And believe me, my Lords, that sometimes causes quite considerable inconvenience. I should have thought that the Government, while they were dealing with this problem, would have tried to look at it from the point of view not only of the shop assistant and the shop employee, but also of the shoppers. I feel that the unions chiefly concerned in this matter could have played an important part in formulating the Bill. In my experience— and I say it to their credit—I have never known the unions backward in any way in seeing that the employee in the service and the distributive trades gets a fair deal. I think we must look at this problem from that point of view.
My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor mentioned the half-day holiday. I remember that, when I was chairman of a joint industrial council, we had so to arrange it— and we did arrange it— that, for those who had to work a week-end there were three week-ends off and one on. After all, the most valuable half-day for anybody who works in a shop, or anywhere, is a Saturday afternoon: that is when the football matches are played, when the children are at home, and when families are congregated. Having the half-day off on a Wednesday, to my mind, is one of the most distressing things, because everything is "dead." I should have thought that all these things could have been sorted out by consultation with the unions concerned before the Bill was framed.
As I think Lord Gifford said— and again the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, echoed it— what was good in 1946 is not very much good in 1956. The expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, was "a minor revolution"; and it is going on.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHYes; a minor social revolution. Before we are many years older there will be another revolution, because the shop assistant will gradually disappear in a 705 number of trades, due to self-service. If the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, which your Lordships passed a short time ago, comes into full force, we shall see self-service and price attraction to self-service again revolutionising shopping. I feel that at the Committee stage of this Bill we shall have to look seriously at some of its clauses. I am not an advocate of keeping shops open all hours of the day and night, although I was struck, the first time I went to Switzerland and. walked down the streets of Geneva, by the fact that one never saw anybody drunk. I inquired about it, and was told that I never should, because all the Places where liquor could be bought were open day and night.
I believe that there are other matters which this Bill sidesteps. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, say that is makes some change regarding what I think is a blot on our cities at the present time— namely, the street trader. I do not mean the recognised street trader, such as we can see in "Petticoas Lane," or the street trading that takes place in the market squares of our country towns, which not only provides a great service to the public but has a picturesque atmosphere, also, but the barrow boys who clutter up some of our main thoroughfares. Only the other day, it cost me a lot of money in a taxicab when the taxicab was jammed up in Stratton Street, a one-way street in the heart of London, because barrow boys were lined up all the way down the street. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, seems to think that the Government have made a great step forward in providing that barrow boys may not ply their trade on streets at other than recognised shop opening hours. I do not think they should be allowed at any time to ply their trade on streets where traffic has to flow, unless it is a recognised market place, such as "Petticoat Lane."
Those are all the comments that I have to make. I am not going to-day into many of the questions that will arise on the Committee stage. There are seventy-six clauses in this Bill, and we shall need some time to consider them. If my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor is correct in saying that the unions w ere not consulted, I feel that, between now and the Committee stage they should be brought into consultation, so that we may 706 arrive at some sensible compromise on some of the clauses of this Bill. We shall give the Government, as the Opposition in your Lordships' House always do, every critical assistance. We shall not impede the progress of the Bill, but we shall put down many Amendments. I hope that, between now and the Committee stage, the noble Lord will be able to satisfy himself upon what are some of the objections of the unions that were voiced by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to give us some of the answers this afternoon.
§ 4.41 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD) STRATHCLYDE)My Lords, I am grateful indeed to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon, and I can assure them that the points they have made will he fully considered as the Bill moves along. I was grateful to the noble Lord who spoke first from the Benches opposite for the reference he made to Sir Winston Churchill, reminding us of the magnificent social work on which he was engaged many long years ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, is not present now, and I am grateful to him for courteously letting me know that he had to be elsewhere at this hour. Nevertheless, I think noble Lords would like me to answer the questions which he put. The matter which has concerned many noble Lords is this question of consultation. Consultation has taken place, and I will give some details of the extent of that consultation. The suggested provisions that are in the Bill now were circulated as long ago as 1953, and consultations have been proceeding ever since. These provisions were sent to some eighty interested organisations. These organisations gave their views in writing; several deputations have been received in the last year or two by Ministers, including a deputation on the subject of the evening hour from the Early Closing Association, the Trades Union Congress, the Co-operative Union and many other trade bodies. A substantial number of the trade organisations, including the National Chamber of Trade, are in favour of the 7 o'clock closing hour They have also made representations in favour of the Bill's proposals.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHBefore the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask him whether the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers was among the number?
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEIf the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I was really answering, up to this point, the question of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. I have a further answer to give the noble Lord himself. I would put this point strongly, because it has been emphasised by many noble Lords who have spoken, that the Government have to consider the public as well as the shopkeeper and the shop assistant, That was a matter which was made abundantly clear by the noble Lord who spoke last. So long as it is not clear beyond doubt that a statutory hour of 6 o'clock would satisfy all reasonable requirements of shopkeepers and shoppers, it appears to the Government that it would be wrong to put the closing hour as early as 6 o'clock. In that connection, one has to remember and keep constantly in mind the great number of married women who are to-day in employment, and the great difficulties they have in shopping. They must have every reasonable opportunity of doing their shopping at a reasonable hour.
Now I come to the question which was specifically asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The Trades Union Congress and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers were consulted. As I said earlier, they were sent the detailed proposals in 1953. They submitted detailed criticisms, subsequently they elaborated these, and twice they had meetings with the Home Secretary and the Scottish Ministers. Their points, I can assure the noble Lord, were naturally given the fullest possible consideration. I was asked a further question by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. He asked whether there had been sufficient experience in the last ten years to justify the Sunday trading provisions in the Bill. My answer to that would be, Yes.
One further point was made by the noble Lord who opened from the Opposition Benches. He asked why, under the Bill, a shop assistant is not to be allowed off on his half-holiday before 1.30 o'clock, or four and a half hours after his work starts. The reason for the 1.30 o'clock 708 start of the assistant's half-holiday is that shops generally close at 1 o'clock, and surely it is only reasonable that the assistant should be kept back for a short period to help to tidy up, put things away and that kind of operation. It would be unreasonable to the public to require the shops to close earlier than 1 o'clock.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked me why the choice of late night rests with the local authority. The noble Lord must understand that there will be alternative late nights, and the trader can take whichever one he chooses. There was another point which the noble Lord did not seem quite to appreciate. The Bill provides different pairs of nights which may apply to different trades in any particular town. It seems to the Government that if the shopkeeper were given complete freedom, the law about closing simply could not be enforced. Inspectors would never know whether a particular shop was legally open or not.
I was grateful for the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax. We are all aware of the great experience he has, not only in the Savings Movement, but otherwise. We shall pay great attention to anything he has to say on the particular matter which he mentioned at the close of his remarks. The point which the noble Lord made in connection with the confectionery trade was one to which the Gowers Committee gave a tremendous amount of attention. They said:
The choice is… between altering the law in a way which the confectionery trade think unfair to them and leaving in it provisions which are a standing invitation to evasion.We all know that the difficulty is that sweets are sold in so many shops other than the ordinary sweet shop. I think it was the County Councils Association who said to the Gowers Committee that sweets were sold by, among others, grocers, bakers, chemists, stationers and fruiterers. It would seem to be quite impracticable to limit the exemption of ordinary sweet shops, when the result would be that many shops would be able to stay open after closing hours for the sale of sweets only. The Gowers Committee considered that to be a strong invitation to evasion. I think that is the difficulty of the whole question. I am quite certain it is one which the noble Lord will explore further when we come to the Committee stage.709 I thank my noble friend Lord Polwarth for what he said about Scotland. We object to having to have our hair cut at any time if it costs more than a "bawbee" but Sunday is particularly offensive to us in that connection. I appreciated the point he made, which I think is one of great importance to Scotland regarding the easement in holiday resorts, and in other places, incidentally, where tourists go, such as the great city of Edinburgh. It should be of great help so far as the tourist industry is concerned.
I have omitted to refer to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for which I was grateful but, if I may say so, without any wish to be offensive or in any way disrespectful to the noble Lord. I would say that he seemed to be slipping back into other times— times which we have left behind, I am afraid, for good and all. The small man is a most important person, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax reminded us, we should be careful about anything we do to hinder him. Noble Lords will remember what my noble friend mentioned in his opening speech about the evidence that had been given by a shopkeeper in other times, who spoke of shop-keeping as more or less a slavery trade. It seems to me that the small shopkeeper in the family business, if he is to compete with someone alongside him, may very much welcome— indeed, we know that many of them do welcome— this provision for a closing hour. I have answered to the best of my ability the various questions that have been put to me. I thank your Lordships again for the interest shown in the Bill and for the support which you have given it.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House