Lords Sitting of 12 February 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

UNEMPLOYMENT IN MOTOR CAR CENTRES
2.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the numbers of persons registered as (a) totally unemployed and (b) temporarily stopped: and the amounts paid in unemployment benefits for the months of November and December, 1956, and January. 1957, in the following areas:

Area

Date

Number of persons registered

Totally Unemployed

Temporarily Stopped

Birmingham

…

12th November, 1956

…

…

6,221

566

10th December, 1956

…

…

6,341

261

14th January, 1957

…

…

8,705

857

Coventry

…

12th November, 1956

…

…

2,350

135

10th December, 1956

…

…

2,022

206

14th January, 1957

…

…

2,933

133

Luton (including Dunstable)

…

12th November, 1956

…

…

261

29

10th December, 1956

…

…

281

123

14th January, 1957

…

…

750

121

Oxford

…

12th November, 1956

…

…

236

—

10th December, 1956

…

…

754

—

14th January, 1957

…

…

827

10

Dagenham

…

12th November, 1956

…

…

482

5

10th December, 1956

…

…

469

15,210

14th January, 1957

…

…

684

16,324

Birmingham, Coventry, Luton, Oxford, and Dagenham.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, as the Answer to the noble Lord's Question of necessity contains a large number of figures, I will, with his permission and that of the House, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my thanks for the trouble he has gone to in providing all the figures that I think, of necessity, he must give me to find a full answer? The method he suggests of conveying the information to your Lordships' House is quite acceptable to me.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the figures contained in the table will include the number of people thrown out of work by unofficial strikes.
LORD MANCROFT: No, my Lords.
Following is the table:

Area

Month

Total Amount Paid in Unemployment Benefit

£

Birmingham

…

November, 1956

…

…

…

39,725

December, 1956

…

…

…

33,792

January, 1957

…

…

…

45,614

Coventry

…

November, 1956

…

…

…

23,840

December, 1956

…

…

…

19,322

January, 1957

…

…

…

27,081

Luton (including Dunstable)

…

November, 1956

…

…

…

6,307

December, 1956

…

…

…

14,221

January, 1957

…

…

…

20,488

Oxford

…

November, 1956

…

…

…

1,630

December, 1956

…

…

…

5,001

January, 1957

…

…

…

6,685

Dagenham

…

November, 1956

…

…

…

3,178

December, 1956

…

…

…

8,960

January, 1957

…

…

…

85,961

Note.—The figures in respect of workers temporarily stopped relate to persons working short-time or otherwise stood off who registered at Employment Exchanges and were not at work on the dates when the count was made.

MR. SANDYS' VISIT TO AMERICA
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, to allay the widespread anxiety expressed by our Continental Allies, they can give art assurance that the visit of the Minister of Defence to Washington implies no unilateral action taken without consultation with our Allies.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the visit of my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence to Washington most certainly does not imply that action affecting our Allies in N.A.T.O. will be taken without proper consultation with them.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord appreciates the importance of giving the maximum publicity and emphasis to the Answer he has just given, in view of the many rumours and suggestions to the contrary which are current, not only in this country but abroad? For example, there was a statement in one of our national newspapers this morning, in connection with the visit of the Minister of Defence, in which it was categorically asserted that
662
American Defence Chiefs have been told that, whatever objections they may raise, Britain intends to cut her ground and air forces stationed in Germany, an action which, as your Lordships know, would be directly contrary to the specific undertakings that have been given in the Paris Agreement.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have seen the statement to which the noble Lord refers, and others a good deal wilder than that. I hope that the most categorical assurance that I have just been able to give to my noble friend Lord Stonehaven will put the noble Lord's mind at rest.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, which is entirely satisfactory.

EGYPT: RUMOURED THREAT OF AMERICAN SANCTIONS
LORD HATHERTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, on November 6, 1956, the British Ambassador in Washington was officially informed that if Great Britain did not immediately end her military action in Egypt, the United States

663
would impose economic sanctions, either in whole or in part, against the United Kingdom.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that neither Her Majesty's Ambassador, who was on the high seas on the date in question. nor Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires in Washington received any communication to the effect that if Her Majesty's Government did not immediately end the military action in Egypt the United States would impose economic sanctions on the United Kingdom. This story, which has been widely disseminated, is a complete fabrication.
LORD HATHERTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
LORD PETIHCK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Question, of which I have given them private notice: Are they in a position to make a statement on local government finance?
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I hope to make such a statement at about half-past three this afternoon.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, this is the first of three Orders to be moved under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. All three of them are in the usual form, and my remarks only the other day are so fresh in your Lordships' minds that I will not weary you by repeating them. In none of these cases was a poll even necessary. I beg to move the first Order.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Stourport-on-Severn, be approved.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the second Order.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Swaffham, be approved.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the third Order.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Lichfield, be approved.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT (RAILWAY FINANCES) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
COMMONWEALTH SETTLEMENT BILL
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, on the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee, I should like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill a question of which I have given him notice. It is strongly rumoured (I know that rumour is sometimes a "lying jade") that it is the intention of the Government to withdraw this Bill. Before we go further with any of the stages of this Bill, as this is the initiatory House in this case, I should like to know whether there is any substance or fact in that suggestion, because it would be convenient for us to know at this stage.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. my Lords: we intend to go on with our business.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, following upon the question asked by my noble friend and the noble Viscount's answer, my information is that the Government do not intend to bring this Bill into force, if it should pass all the necessary stages in Parliament, until 1959. The reason, I understand, is that by that time the Government may have made up their mind as to the reorientation and, very likely, the disbanding of some local authorities' functions and duties. This Bill transfers the functions of enforcement to the district councils, which may or may not have their boundaries altered, and may or may not be in existence upon that date, and leaves some functions unrepealed by the 1950 Act with the county councils. As the noble Viscount will have seen, I have down some Amendments to try to bring order into what I think may be chaos, and I should not like the Committee to proceed upon the very lengthy consideration of this Bill without the knowledge that it is the Government's intention to implement this Bill before 1959.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord's information does not accord with mine.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, that is a brief and, perhaps, to the noble Viscount, a satisfactory answer. But it was published in the Press the other day that, as a result of the consultations between various interested parties and the Government Department for whom the noble Viscount will be speaking when he conducts the passage of the Bill, this Bill would not, if it received the Royal Assent, come into force under Clause 76 until January, 1959.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can only say that if the noble Lord wants any further information he must put a Question down. He did not give me notice of this.
On Question, Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Weekday closing times.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and to the following provisions of this Act, every shop shall be closed—

(a) on each of the weekdays (except one) of each week, not later than seven o'clock
666
in the evening or such earlier time as may be fixed by order of the local authority within whose area the shop is situate; and

(bon the remaining weekday of each week (which shall be ascertained in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act and is therein referred to as the "late day"), not later than eight o'clock in the evening or such earlier time as may be fixed as aforesaid:

Provided that on any weekday which by this Part of this Act is required to be observed as respects a shop as an early closing day the shop shall be closed not later than one o'clock in the afternoon.
(2) An order under this section may be so framed as to extend to the whole of the area of the authority by whom it is made or to part only of that area, as to have effect as respects the generality of shops within the area to which it extends (either without exception or subject to an exception for shops where a particular trade or business is carried on) or as respects shops within that area where a particular trade or business is carried on, and as to have effect either at all times or at particular periods of the year, and different times may be fixed by order under this section—

(a) for the purposes of different trades or businesses;

(b) as respects different parts of the area of the authority;

(c) on different days in the same week or the same day in different weeks;

but the fixing, by an order under this section, of a time for the purposes of a particular trade or business shall not, in the case of a shop where that trade or business is carried on, operate so as to require it to be closed not later than that time for the purposes of any other trade at business carried on therein.
(3) The power conferred on a local authority by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not be so exercised as to fix a time earlier than six o'clock in the evening, and the power conferred on a local authority by paragraph (b) of that subsection shall trot be so exercised as to result in a shop's being required to be closed on the late day in any week for the purposes or trade or business of any kind earlier than one hour after the latest of the times at which it must, by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, be closed on other weekdays of that week for the purposes of trade or business of that kind.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1) (a) to leave oat "seven" and insert "six". The noble Viscount said: Before I come to this Amendment, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to say that I welcome the general fact that this Bill has been introduced, and that it makes some progress in the struggle in which trade union, co-operative and labour organisations have been engaged for a long number of years (I have been in it myself for

667
nearly forty years), although in the view of some of us it does not go far enough. I do not want it to be thought that, with regard to any Amendments that I may move or support, I do not welcome the fact that, after nearly ten years, many, if not all, the recommendations of the Gowers Committee will be found in this Bill.
When I come to deal with Clause 1, I find that in their Report the Gowers Committee did not see fit to bring into statutory proposal the basis of the case so well delivered to the Gowers Committee, both by the representatives of trade unions and by the co-operative societies. In both cases a very large and powerful membership were unanimous in the view that, in order to continue the progress which had been made on the general question of shorter hours for the workers, yet still providing reasonable facilities for the consumers, it was essential to move towards the kind of hours which I have laid down in my Amendment. So I beg formally at the start to move the substitution on page 1, line 13, of the word "six" for "seven", which would involve the general provisions of the Bill providing for a closure of shops at 6 o'clock.
It is our view, at any rate in the trade union concerned with the organisation of labour defence in shops, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. that the proposed hour of 7 o'clock as the latest general closing hour is not in accordance with the need for progress in this matter, and is not, in fact, an hour which is in general observance in the country at the present time. I should say—and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Viscount has to say in reply to this point—that it is the practice to-day for the overwhelming majority of shops to close at 6 o'clock or earlier. This has obtained right through the post-war years, ever since 1945, and in that period the trade union concerned has periodically made inquiries into which are the current closing hours throughout the country. The latest of these inquiries was carried out as recently as November of last year. The position certainly has not changed since then.
This inquiry covered the London area; it covered most of the provincial towns and cities and, in addition, almost half
668
of the co-operative societies in the whole of the country, and so it represented a reliable and substantial cross-section of the retail trade. The results showed that closing times on the ordinary nights of the week—that is to say, other than the late day which is provided for in the same clause—varied in most cases from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. In only a very small proportion of shops did the closing hour go beyond 6 o'clock, and that proportion varied, in the different districts which were inquired into, from between 1½ per cent. to 3 per cent. of the total. The only exception to this pattern was the newsagency, tobacco and confectionery trade, where between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the shops closed after 6 o'clock.
It is noteworthy that, again with the exception of the newsagency, tobacco and confectionery trade, between 67 per cent. and 77 per cent. did not observe any late day of opening at all during the week. Even where a late day was observed, it did not necessarily mean that the shops kept open an extra hour.
It will therefore be seen that, in urging that the new Act should lay down a general closing hour of 6 o'clock, with one late day allowed at 7 o'clock, the people who desire this Amendment which I am moving ask only what is now the majority established practice. When I look back at all the struggles which I have seen carried on in another place for the last forty years, in connection both with shops legislation and with carrying out the wishes of the Early Closing Association, which were always supported by Members of all Parties, I find it difficult to understand upon what grounds, with regard to present-day facts, the Gowers Committee went no further than they did in their recommendation in this respect. Where there is considered to be a good reason for a later closing hour—and I can see that there may be some good reason in a few cases like the newsagency, tobacco and confectionery trades, where need can be proved—then I think one ought to be willing to accommodate these exceptions by enabling the local authorities, where necessary, to fix a later hour, up to 7 p.m. If the Government will be good enough to accept my present Amendment, we could arrange to deal with that point later in the proceedings.
In recommending a general closing hour of 7 o'clock, the Gowers Committee justified their proposal on the ground that the public would not be content to accept a 6 o'clock closing hour when circumstances changed, when there were plenty of things to buy and no ration books or coupons. But that Report is ten years old, and the situation to-day, as I have indicated and as shown by the inquiries of the promoters of this suggested Amendment, has entirely changed. Ration books and coupons now have disappeared for years and to-day, when the shops are full of goods, the facts do not bear out the conclusions of the Gowers Committee.
Will a general 6 o'clock closing hour amount to unreasonable curtailment of shopping facilities for the customer? Apart from the evidence to the contrary about present closing hours that I have already indicated, there is other telling evidence to show that this would not be the case. In all these matters, I consider that we need to place considerable emphasis upon the views of the Trades Union Congress, as well as on the views of the Co-operative Congress. The T.U.C. (as we call represents more than 8 million workers, including 1½ million women employed in industry and commerce. In its evidence to the Gowers Committee, the T.U.C. said that it was concerned to ensure, on the one hand, that reasonable shopping facilities are provided for the consumer and, on the other, that reasonable hours are worked by those employed in the distributive trades. It believed that those conditions could be met by a general closing hour of 6 o'clock, with the power to fix earlier or later hours by a local order.
What of the point of view of women working in factories and offices? The Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, by far the most representative organisation in the country of housewives and women in industry, came down on the side of a 6 o'clock closing hour in the views which they presented to the Gowers Committee in 1946. The views of the T.U.C. and of the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations remain the same to-day as they were in 1946.
The Co-operative Movement, which I have mentioned, with a membership of between 11 million and 12 million, and
670
with its own women's organisation in the Women's Co-operative Guild, can also, I think, be claimed to be a reasonable and reliable barometer of what are consumers' views, particularly on closing hours. A member of a co-operative society can, if he or she likes—and I wish more of them did like—attend at any time a quarterly meeting of his or her society of member shareholders and register his or her dissatisfaction with the board of management if they do not meet them, not merely in regard to price but also in regard to service and service facilities. Yet it is the Co-operative Movement which has associated itself throughout with the demands for a general statutory closing hour of 6 o'clock, with the qualification of a late day of 7 p.m. closing.
I come next to the organisation which I said just now had been supported at all sages of its history by members of all Parties—the Early Closing Association, long identified with the problems of the shopping closing hour. To-day, that Association stands strongly in support of 6 o'clock as the general closing hour on which new legislation should be based. A number of important national traders and employers' organisations vitally concerned with the question have also been pressing for a general closing time of 6 o'clock, with a late day of 7 p.m.
I think it would be a good thing to put on record here what trades are covered by these employers' organisations. There are 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 Associations, the Incorporated National Federation of Boot Trades Associations, the Stationers' Association of Great Britain, the Booksellers' Association of Great Britain, as well as the central body, the Co-operative Union of the vast Co-operative Movement in this country. That is an extraordinary gathering of people on the side of the trade unions and the consumers' organisation in regard to the Amendment which I am now moving. It can hardly be said that in moving it from a trade union point of view I am therefore moving it in a class sense. It is a general provision that is not only desired by the

671
workers in the organisation but also supported by the working women housewives of the country. It is also supported by this formidable list of distributive trade employers' association.
So far as I am concerned, I still feel strongly that any provision for a general closing hour in a new Act of Parliament which went beyond 6 o'clock would be a grave weakness. Longer shopping hours must mean longer working hours for shops staffs, involving regular overtime working. It has been suggested that longer working hours can be avoided, either by a staggering of hours or a system of shift working. I wonder whether any of your Lordships happened recently to see and hear on television the arguments upon this particular question from different points of view. For example, someone who spoke on behalf of the newest kind of retail distribution to be found, the super-market, argued strongly in favour of having these markets open almost all round the clock. He contemplated anything up to 10 o'clock, or even later, and said that they could quite easily find organised labour to work on a shift system. But when the argument was put from the other kind of trader, what a different story, was told! Then we had the story put by the individual grocer—not entirely the one-man shopkeeper but the person with two or three assistants only—who said he would find it impossible to contemplate the expense even of wide staggering of hours or to operate a shift system. In order to maintain anything like a competitive basis between the small trader of that kind and the big super-market of the future, the small trader would have to work his assistants longer, whatever overtime he paid them. What a weary time these people would have! Every item of the extra cost would go on to the cost to the consumer.
We looked into the figures and found that, according to a census of distribution in 1950, the total number of retail shops in Great Britain, including the service trades, was 551,214, of which no fewer than 355,157, or 64 per cent., were shops in which three persons or under were engaged. What sort of chance have those people of dealing with staggered hours? What sort of chance have they of getting anything like leisure if, as one would think from some of the Amendments I see upon the Marshalled List, longer
672
hours than even the Government suggest are inserted in the Bill? What sort of chance have those people to get a decent outlook upon life, or any reasonable leisure, or any real share in the social progress that the nation has been demanding for the last seventy or eighty years? It seems to me to be an extraordinary view to take.
It is, therefore, quite clear that shift systems and rota working would be practicable only through a big increase in manpower in the distributive trades. I am quite sure the noble Viscount who is going to answer will remember the controversy there was during the between-war years about the constant and steady increase of employment in the distributive trades, sometimes said to be to the detriment of our general productive expansion. There has already been, in the last year or two, a slight increase in that direction. I think that that needs to be taken into consideration. Either way, as I have said, the cost involved, whether by additional staff or by overtime payments, would be very large indeed—a cost which must always, in the final reckoning, be reflected in the price at which the goods are sold.
At present, the normal working week of shop workers—that is, before they become entitled to overtime pay—is from 44 to 46 hours. Advocates of the advantages of longer shopping hours pay little regard to the consequences—the cost in terms of longer hours for the shop worker, higher prices for the goods in the shops, and the unnecessary and undesirable burden upon the shopkeeper who would be bound by the pressure of competition to conform to later closing hours. He knows from experience during the last fifteen years, year after year, that this 7 p.m. closing is entirely unnecessary. I think it is the responsibility of Parliament to bear that important consideration in mind. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will give serious consideration to the Amendment which I move, and, most of all, will bear in mind that what I am asking should go into the legislation is no more than the general practice of the majority of shops to-day. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("seven") and insert ("six").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough)
3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I first of all thank the noble Viscount for the general support which he proposes to offer to the Government in the passage of this Bill. We welcome support from whatever quarter it comes, and the noble Viscount is undoubtedly a doughty supporter to number in the phalanx which, if one cannot at least command, one can rely upon as allies in debate. I am afraid that I shall have to ask for a good deal of his indulgence as we get on. This is the first Bill of any kind that I have attempted to pilot through either House of Parliament as a member of the Government. It may be that I shall speak too much; it may be that I shall speak too little but I am sure that I can rely on the noble Viscount to point out the particular trap into which I fall on any given occasion. I hope he will do so compassionately; I will endeavour to learn as I go along.
I think, if he will allow me to say so, that some of the noble Viscount's last remarks were not so much shafts directed against the Government for the purpose of causing them to accept this Amendment as Parthian arrows directed to the noble Lord below the gangway, who is about to move an Amendment in directly the opposite sense; because of course it is no part of this Bill to prolong hours or to advocate shift systems or staggerings of hours at all. On the contrary, I must reiterate that the effect of the clause in the Bill as it stands unamended is to reduce the number of hours for which, by and large, the shops are open, day by day and week by week. At the moment, broadly speaking, it is eight hours normally, and nine on the late day. The Bill proposes seven and, late day, eight. The effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment, were it to be passed, would be to reduce the number of hours still further, from the present eight to six, instead of seven, and from the present nine, to seven, instead of eight. It is a two-hour reduction and not a one-hour reduction which the noble Viscount is proposing. In addition, unless I am mistaken, the Amendment would make the early closing hour 12 noon, instead of 1 o'clock.
I am glad that the noble Viscount made the speech he did straight away, because, quite clearly, he establishes the strength
674
of public opinion which he could muster in support of a reduction in hours. And when we come to consider, as we shall have to do later on, proposals in quite the opposite direction—to remove all restriction or to increase the number of hours—my noble friends would do well to bear in mind that public opinion on this subject can be mobilised in quite considerable strength in either direction. It is, of course, the case that the noble Viscount can command a very responsible body of organised public opinion not confined to one class or one Party, and still less to a single interest, which has pressed for many years for a reduction in shopping hours. So far as he does that, I should not complain if, in supporting this Bill, he should put forward those arguments. On the contrary, I shall myself be employing some of them at a later stage, and therefore it would ill become me to complain of them. On the other hand, when the noble Viscount proposes to reduce the hours still further than the Bill at present does, I suggest to the Committee that he is really going too far, and that the Bill has struck the happy mean in this matter much more than has the noble Viscount. Who, in this particular debate, is right out on the Left Wing.
The Gowers Committee reported in favour of the solution which the Bill, on the whole, has adopted. The noble Viscount, having admitted that this was so, says however that the Gowers Committee Report is ten years old. That, of course, is a very powerful argument. It is so powerful that it is precisely the argument which is propounded in the opposite direction by those who want to prolong the hours. "Backward Government!", they say: "insensitive to modern trends. Anybody who has an eye to the future can see that shift working, staggered hours and all-night opening are the way of progress and expansion. Why bother to deal with a fusty old document like the Cowers Report?" A very powerful argument, but one which cannot be right in both directions. If it be true, as some critics of the Bill say, that the Report is out of date because it proposes too great a diminution in hours, it cannot, at the same time, be true that it is out of date because the diminution of hours which it proposes is too small. On this

675
occasion, therefore, though I shall propose to enlist the noble Viscount on the next Amendment in my support, I now enlist against him my friends behind me who, on Second Reading, proposed the other argument.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: If the noble Viscount will forgive my interrupting him, the argument I was making was that not only was the Report of the Gowers Committee ten years old but that one of the main reasons why they brought forward their recommendations had been disproved by experience since then in the trades concerned.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I followed what the noble Viscount was saying, and he said it very well. The only thing I was remarking upon was that critics in the opposite direction say that it has been disproved in exactly the opposite way. I did not profess to choose between these doughty protagonists of entirely opposed points of view, but ventured only to assert that on this they were inconsistent. I should have thought that that proposition was almost self-evident.
One has to ask oneself seriously what are the real criteria for which one looks in a Bill of this kind. I believe that one of the overriding questions, though perhaps not the only overriding question, is the convenience of the public. Whilst, on the whole, I agree with the noble Viscount that the facts and figures he has produced establish a strong prima facie case for the reduction of hours to the level which the Bill proposes, he has not established a case for the reduction of hours in excess of what is proposed in the Bill. It is perfectly true that a very large proportion of housewives can be shown to shop before 6 o'clock. They have to, of course, because most shops shut at 6 o'clock. If the shops were to stay open, I daresay that a large proportion of housewives would shop at a different hour. It is also true, of course, that many shopkeepers are quite satisfied to shut their shops at 6 o'clock, some of them no doubt, because they know that the public have to shop when the shops are open and cannot do their shopping when the shops are shut; so that in a sense, if it suits shopkeepers to shut at six, they can do so with perfect impunity. These are only ways of illustrating the obvious.
676
The point I wish to make is that, after reviewing the whole of the evidence, the Gowers Committee found as a fact that many people would not be able to complete their shopping by 6 o'clock. It may be that those people are in a majority, though I myself should think they are quite a small minority. But at any rate, to my way of thinking—and I invite my noble friends and noble Lords on all sides of the Committee to agree with me—the mark of a free society and of a democracy, in matters of this kind, in obtaining the necessities, comforts and decencies of life, does not consist only in catering for the majority, but in catering for everybody—including minorities; and if it can be shown, as the Gowers Committee claim to show (and I still believe that their Report is the most impartial and reliable guide on this matter), that many people would not be able to complete their shopping by 6 o'clock, then I should hold that to be a strong argument against accepting the noble Viscount's Amendment. The Gowers Committee went on to say that many people had stated that they would find 6 p.m. closing much too early. Again, such people may not constitute the majority, but this is a free society, and in matters of this kind we should consult the convenience and interests of minorities, as well as that of majorities. I believe we should be mistaken to disregard the opinion of any shopkeepers in this respect.
There is another argument to which I also pay a certain amount of attention. As noble Lords will realise, there is, at the tail end of the Bill—which I hope ultimately we shall reach—a long list of exemptions. I believe that most of us, simply as amateur legislators, prefer, in principle, to see exemptions made as few as possible. I am advised that if the noble Viscount were to have his way, and the number of hours was reduced, we should be under strong pressure to make other, and numerous, exemptions from closing hours, altogether or partially; and this would complicate the Bill. So I venture to suggest to the Committee that this Amendment, which I hope the noble Viscount will think I have treated both courteously and carefully, although it is supported, as I do not deny, by a very responsible and respectable body of public opinion coming from

677
many sources, is not calculated to improve the Bill. On the contrary, I should have thought that it was just the way to exacerbate criticism of the Bill in the opposite direction, and so prevent its passage into law. For this reason I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I make no complaint at all as to the manner in which the noble Viscount has replied. I would only suggest to him, despite the fervency with which he has argued against my Amendment, that he might have recalled something of the work of his famous grandfather, who was such a great advocate of social, reforms. I should have thought that we might have heard from the noble Viscount more of the human element, more about the workers who are concerned in this industry. Nearly all the arguments which the noble Viscount has so carefully deployed are arguments which I have heard at every stage of my fight over the years for reducing shop hours. And they have all been disproved by forty years of gradual change in the other direction. In that time, we have succeeded in gradually giving a little better life, providing a little more time for recreation and relaxation, and generally improving the conditions of shop workers who, when I was a boy, used to work from 8 o'clock in the morning until as late as 10 p.m., 11 p.m. or even midnight. I should have thought that in reasonable legislation now there could have been incorporated what in the last ten years since the war has proved to be the general practice of the majority of branches of the industry. So in that respect I am disappointed at the answer of the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved in paragraph 1 (a), after "time" to insert "or later time". The noble Viscount said: I have obviously an important matter to consider here—that is, what is fair to your Lordships' House, in view of the attitude which the Government are obviously taking on Amendments to this clause in the direction which I desire. The more I look at the relation of these other Amendments to the first one, which has just been negatived, the more I think it would be unfair to deploy to your
678
Lordships—as I could deploy—arguments on each of these Amendments. Therefore, I would ask to be given the privilege of moving these Amendments formally, and then, if your Lordships are so unwise as to negative them, I leave the matter to you. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, tine 14, after ("time") insert ("or later time").—(Viscount Alexander of Hills borough.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("eight") and insert ("seven").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-
BOROUGH: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("time") insert ("or later time").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should perhaps just say a brief word upon the next Amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I thought, seemed rather shocked about introducing "twelve noon" into this clause. Just think of the distributive workers for a moment or two, before you negative the Amendment. In a large part of industry to-day the workers have a five-day week. A very large proportion of others certainly finish their tasks in yard or factory at 12 noon on closing day. They can go to athletic sports, a football match or to any other diversion they fancy. But there are thousands of shop workers who, because of their hours, have not that opportunity. Why should not the shops close at 12 noon? After all, there are masses of workers who are walking about on Saturday mornings with time free for shopping. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("one o'clock in the afternoon") and insert ("twelve noon").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think that these matters are to be decided by reference to the balance of convenience. We think of the distributive worker and we

679
think also of the people who want to shop. Undoubtedly many of the latter do not get free until 12 noon. They come out of factories and workshops at that time and they have only until 1 o'clock to do their shopping. Not all these workers have a whole morning free to walk about like the noble Viscount's friends. They may want to shop between 12 noon and 1 o'clock. I think the balance of convenience is exactly as we propose in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("earlier than six") and insert ("later than seven").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
3.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: For the purpose of making a statement to the House on local government finance, I should like at this stage to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the statement which I shall make to the House now is similar to that which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The statement is as follows:
Her Majesty's Government have completed their review of local government finance: and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Housing and Local Government are now ready to enter into discussions with the representatives of local authorities. In making this announcement of the broad conclusions which we propose to put before the local authorities I am, at the request of the Secretary of State, referring to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
680
The Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in England and Wales, which I hope will be discussed by the House as soon as possible, are designed to strengthen the local government system. In doing this it is essential to improve the financial relationship between the central government and local authorities. The ratio between Exchequer grants to local authorities and their revenue from local rates, which thirty years ago was 1 to 2, is now 6 to 5. Not only has this remarkable shift reduced the financial independence of local authorities and their degree of direct responsibility to their own ratepayers; in addition, much of this Exchequer aid is on a percentage basis towards the expenditure incurred on specific services, Percentage grants, whatever their merits, carry two disadvantages. First, there may be danger of an excessive degree of detailed central supervision over the spending of the money. Secondly, there is no certainty from year to year what the Exchequer may be called upon to contribute.
My right honourable friend is sure that the greater the independence of local authorities in the raising and the spending of their money, the better for the good health of local government. The Government, after a thorough investigation, do not think it practicable to devise a satisfactory new source of local revenue. Nor do they believe it right to earmark for the direct benefit of local authorities any tax that is now levied nationally. Rates are in this country a well-established instrument of local taxation. There are some difficulties to be overcome in the rate system, but it provides a sound basis for local finance and no better system of local taxation has been propounded.
In 1929, when unemployment was widespread, it was decided in the light of economic conditions as they then were to de-rate industry and freight-transport from 100 per cent. to 25 per cent. of net annual value. Against the radically different economic background of the present day the Government have thoroughly re-examined this matter, taking into account all the arguments in both directions, and have decided that it is now right to raise

681
the rate contribution of industry and freight transport from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. In addition, further changes will be made in the system of pool payments to local authorities by the nationalised industries, including the direct rating of electricity properties and the separate assessment of electricity and gas show-rooms used as shops, so that all payments now included in the pool are taken into account as rates. In Scotland, the necessity for changes on these lines will not arise during the period up to 1961 for which the existing valuations are frozen.
At the same time the Government intend a major recasting of the financial relationship between the Exchequer and local authorities. This will entail a radical revision of the structure of Exchequer grants, as well as some reduction of the grants to take account of the new rate income. With a few exceptions, where technical considerations make it not possible or desirable, specific grants will be replaced by a general grant of an amount fixed in advance for a short period of years, though not necessarily at the same level for each year of the period This general grant will be distributed to all county and county borough councils in England and Wales, and to county and town councils in Scotland, by reference to objective factors (mainly of weighted population) which are readily ascertainable and afford a fair and reasonable measure of the relative needs of each authority.
With this change, local authorities will acquire a great increase of responsibility in determining the money to be spent on the various services, in accordance with local needs. Local government will become more truly local. Our aim is to foster and stimulate a vigorous and independent local government, and to give members of councils a greater incentive to take a lively interest in their local expenditure by placing much more of it under their own control. Under the proposals the Government have in mind, the amount of general grant-in-aid, not tied in any way to individual services, will, at present levels of expenditure, rise from
682
less than one-sixth to close on two-thirds of the total Exchequer grants to local authorities.
It is also proposed to revise the system of Equalisation grants, on the basis of recommendations made in 1953, including the payment of grants direct to county district councils. In Scotland the arrangements for Equalisation grants were amended by the Act of 1954 and also by last year's Act, which provides that a further review must be held before 1963. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport intend also to review the present system of Highway grants.
So far as practicable, it is the Government's intention to bring all these changes into operation on a single date. Some transitional grant arrangements for a period thereafter will naturally be needed. These proposals will be discussed with other organisations affected by them, in addition to the discussions to be held with representatives of local authorities. The intention of the Government is to introduce legislation as soon as practicable when these necessary discussions have been completed.
I apologise to your Lordships for making so long a statement, but I thought that it was of such importance that your Lordships should hear it.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the statement made by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government is an exceedingly important one, and it will affect everybody throughout the country financially to a very large extent. Though there have been certain vague rumours that the Government were going to take this course, there has been no definite indication, and to a certain extent the statement is a new one. Since it deals with a large number of separate issues, the noble Earl will not expect me to have followed his statement fully and completely at first hearing. Nevertheless, it is a very interesting statement, and no doubt we shall want to debate it in time to come.
I would only remark: on two aspects of it. So far as the derating of industrial premises is concerned, I remember that being introduced by Mr. Winston Churchill (as he then was) in another place something over twenty years ago.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Twenty-nine years ago.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes; just under thirty years ago. It was done at a time of great depression and deflation and to-day the circumstances are quite different. We have been suffering from inflation, from too great a boom for the actual finance and economy of the country to carry. Therefore it is understandable that the Government are taking a different view to-day from that which was taken by Mr. Winston Churchill at the time of the depression. I always thought that he went a great deal too far in his original proposal, which threw a tremendously heavy burden on enterprises which did not come under the strict terms of the reduction and caused a great deal of unfairness through particular enterprises coming on one side of the line or the other. It made a tremendous difference whether a business was charged full rates or one quarter of the rates. I have never been a supporter of the scheme as it stands, and therefore start with sympathy towards the proposals which the Government are making at the present time.
If I understood the noble Earl aright (and I am not quite sure that I did), it is proposed to alter the method by which grants to individual local authorities are passed. I remember that, when these were introduced and explained, no one in another place understood it, not even after they had seen it on paper. An honourable lady who bore my name asked that an algebraic formula should be put down and one was produced. A very complicated algebraic formula it was, but it enabled us to get, for the first time, an idea of the system that the Government were introducing. It may be that when we have gone into this a little further. I shall ask for a similar algebraic formula to be put down in this case. I think that that is as far as I ought to go at this moment, because until my colleagues and I have studied the statement we cannot judge or express any ultimate opinion of what view we shall take of the Government's proposals.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am sure that if the noble Lord sees fit to put down a Motion, or a Question, we shall be able to have the matter debated. The noble Lord will probably agree with me that the derating of industry, while it
684
lasted, has been beneficial to all industries throughout the country. As regards his remarks on grant to local authorities, I have the deepest sympathy with the lady in question, because I have never understood the formula, but I shall endeavour to give your Lordships a clear definition when we debate this subject in due course.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not wish to continue the debate, but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether I am right in inferring that it is not the Government's intention to introduce any measure for the reorganisation of local government. As the noble Earl will remember, there have been a good many discussions on the subject. Indeed, I am under the impression that it has been referred to in one or more of the gracious Speeches. If it was intended to reorganise local government, would it not have been better to enter into discussions on the present proposals contemporaneously with those on reorganisation? Otherwise, if it is still the intention, it would appear that there will have to be two different sets of discussion. Could the noble Earl say, broadly, whether the effect of these proposals will be not merely to make more logical the system of financing local government expenditure out of the Exchequer, but actually to reduce the amount of assistance which local authorities will get from the Exchequer? Is that not an important factor in the proposals which the noble Earl has read out to us?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the statement I made to the House this afternoon dealt entirely with local government finance. If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has any question to raise on the reorganisation of local government, I would much rather he put down a separate Question dealing with that particular issue. As to the noble Lord's second question, I can give no categorical assurance that this will mean a reduction. However, as I said in the course of my remarks, no doubt the House will wish to debate this matter as soon as possible, and I am sure that all these matters will come up for review during that discussion.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, merely for the purpose of getting the record right, of course, I do not know what are the Government's intentions about the

685
reorganisation of local government. I was merely suggesting that if it is still their intention to pursue this matter, it might be wiser to do the two things together. On the second point, I did not ask for an assurance that there would be a reduction in Government expenditure. On the contrary, I was hoping that I might get some reassurance from the noble Earl that there would be no overall reduction in the contributions which are being given to local authorities at the present time, and that this is not an indirect way of cutting down the grants given to local authorities.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, although I am not very good at financial questions, I will try to help him on this point. The matter will be discussed with the local authorities. The first proposal, the re-rating of industry, will put a large sum of money into the pockets of local authorities. Obviously, the Exchequer will be the loser as a result of that, because a great deal will be lost in income tax due to the re-rating of industry. The financial consequences of that will not necessarily at this stage be either a reduction or an increase in what the local authorities get. Obviously there will be a large increase, from the re-rating, and presumably the Exchequer will want to discuss an adjustment of the grant in the light of that increase. The net result ought not to be a loss to the local authorities.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope the local authorities will take note of the noble Viscount's statement.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, what I understand is that there will be a considerable readjustment between one local authority and another. If the formula in which they get the grant is considerably changed, some local authorities will gain by it and others will lose. Is that not the case?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I understand from my noble friend that there will be a good deal during the transitional period to which transitional provisions will apply. I think my noble friend's statement said that the equalisation grants would be affected.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER moved to delete Clause 1. The noble Lord said: My first reaction on seeing this Bill was one of surprise that the time of Ministers, in a day when they are preoccupied with much more important matters, should be taken up in an endeavour to alter the existing closing hours of shops. But perhaps it is because they are so preoccupied with other matters, and therefore have not had sufficient time to give this matter full consideration, not only from the point of view of those who have a special interest but from the point of view of everybody, that they make this proposal to shorten the hours of opening. Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who spoke in favour of shortening the hours, mainly on behalf of shopkeeping interests, I speak quite unashamedly for the consumers, their customers.
In order to get this matter into the right perspective, I think I must repeat that this Bill has nothing to do with the hours of work of employees. With all due respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, it is quite beside the point to introduce a suggestion that any kind of social reform is endangered by the Amendment that I am now moving, if it is old-fashioned to think that a man should be free to work in his shop if he wishes to do so, then I gladly plead guilty. But I think the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in replying to me in the debate on Second Reading would have caused great amusement if they could have been repeated either across the Channel or across the Atlantic, where shopkeepers enjoy the freedom to serve their, customers, which the noble Lord, if I remember rightly, dubbed conditions of "near slavery". I suppose that, if this clause is approved, we may expect some other Department of State, in the interests of protecting allotment holders, to introduce a Bill to see that they do not stay too late on their allotments. And as for the poor slaves who call in the evening on behalf of the Saving Movement to collect those savings which are so important to the national economy, and the many others who have to do their work in the evenings

687
to suit their clients' convenience, I suppose some Department of State will not rest until they have interfered with the service that these good people render.
Surely, service to the public is the raison d'être of any shopkeeper; to meet the convenience and requirements of his customers should be the primary object in which he should glory. Surely, a time when everyone in this country should be thinking of new and improved methods is no time for restrictive legislation of this kind. As one responsible journal described this clause last week;
"It is nothing but an attempt to enact a barefaced restrictive practice designed to compel the consumer to shop at hours which suit not his, but the shopkeeper's convenience."
This restriction ill fits in with the appeals for initiative and enterprise, to which we are so often exhorted. I repeat that no more inappropriate time could have been chosen for legislation of this restrictive character. New and promising experiments are being tried to meet the greater convenience of the public as to form and method in retail trading which should help to check increasing costs of distribution. This clause is an attempt to stultify and to prevent change. Having, in the manufacturing section of the economy, attacked restrictive practices, the Government now come forward and foster restriction in the retail section. Perhaps some of the officials in the Ministry responsible have been listening to those economists who are always talking of "balancing the economy ", and are trying to achieve it in this way. Take away a restrictive practice and put on a restriction: take away a restrictive practice in the manufacturing industry and put on a restriction in the retail trade.
Let us be clear. There is one reason only for opening a shop, and that is to serve customers, and the more the shopkeeper studies his customers the better he should do. By deleting Clause 1, as I beg to move, no shopkeeper is compelled to stay open one minute longer than he wishes. I quite understand and realise that there is a division of opinion among shopkeepers, and many will wish to keep their present hours. But every shopkeeper would, and should, be free to choose his hours so that he can open, say, in the afternoon if he wishes, and close later in the evening. If he did so, there would be fewer complaints from the staff in the offices and the factories
688
who have to ask for time off from their work in order to do their shopping, or who have to bring it in in the morning and let it go bad before they can take it home in the evening, or who have to go without their meals, or have a very short time for lunch, in order to do some shopping to take home with them in the evening. Let us remember that they are the people for whom the shopkeeper exists, and it is the overriding consideration of the consumer which should be the deciding factor in a matter like this.
I ask that we should have no half measures, and I think it is really fantastic that we should have to argue a case of this kind at all. A desire for administrative tidiness is no excuse for taking away a freedom of this kind. Nor should we be told that the Government's proposals are a compromise between what the noble Viscount has asked for and what I have asked for; nor that it is part of the policy of "the middle way" which appears to be so popular with some modern Conservatives—a compromise between freedom and control. You cannot have a compromise between freedom and control. The law can restrict freedom in a proper case. If it does, however, there must be good reason for it; there must be some damage which would be caused by not restricting that freedom, or there must be a balance of advantage, or a balance of damage which would be greater if the freedom were not restricted. It is not possible in this case to show any such damage. Therefore, I suggest that there is no valid reason why freedom should not be given to shopkeepers to fix their opening and closing hours so as to perform the services that they are out to give. I should like to appeal to Her Majesty's Government to withdraw this clause altogether, and if they will not do so I would ask your Lordships to say, in no uncertain way, that this attempt to frustrate and strangle enterprise shall not have the sanction of this Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Grantchester.)
3.55 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is evident to anybody who has taken the trouble to read, not only the Bill, but the Amendments which have been put down, that the debates we shall have

689
are not going to follow strictly Party lines. Therefore, I will underwrite my insurance premium straight away by saying that any comments I make upon this Bill are my own only and are not to be taken to implicate anybody else. Others may, or may not, agree with me.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has made a speech upon the liberty of the subject, but it is evident to me that he has never spent one day of his life in retail trade or in service to the public. I quite agree with him that the retail trade exists for one purpose and one purpose only, which is, to serve the public. But "serving the public" is slightly different from keeping open all night on the off-chance that somebody may want something. Between the two extremes of the pendulum that will swing constantly in the debates in your Lordships' House, the responsibility which rests upon Parliament to-day is to determine what is a reasonable requirement in all the circumstances of service to the public. What is "reasonable"? If he will forgive my saying so, I believe the noble Lord is wrong when he says that this Bill has been brought in to suit the shopkeepers' convenience. My noble friend read out a list of respectable organisations who do not quite agree with the hours set out in the Bill. So far as I can gather, the most responsible trade organisations in the country appear to think that the hours written in Clause 1 effect a reasonable balance, with the exception that perhaps there should be exemptions here and there. I do not think we should ever serve the interests of the public in the widest sense, in the best possible way, by having rigidity. There is a world of difference betwen a slavish consistency and the wide-open licence which the noble Lord has mentioned.
I have had a good deal of experience in the distributing trades, and I can remember when we used to be shanghaied into staying open all hours of the day or night. The reason was because somebody else did it—competition. The real reason why people stay open at night—they have to close up in the end, because the cost factor nearly breaks them—is because their competitor down the street stays open. Ninety per cent. of the money that is thrown away on advertising in this country is spent only because competitors
690
advertise. The only reason why many shops keep open very late at night is to try to prevent their competitor from getting the odd piece of custom. If the shops were kept open all night there would not be any more goods sold in the aggregate. So what is a reasonable balance? As I say, with one or two exemptions where I think, perhaps, this Bill errs upon the mean side, I would be against its being thrown wide open.
It is a specious argument to talk about the liberty of the small, individual shopkeeper. Remember that when we were discussing the Catering Wages Bill, there was always the same argument about the small hotel and the small boarding house. There is no sweated labour in this country like the father and the mother who employ their children in a shop, a hoarding house or a small hotel. There is no sweated labour like it, outside any real. organised effort to improve conditions. I know that the little shop round the corner is very useful when you have forgotten something late at night or want to get a "tip" for the winner of the 2.30. The shopkeeper has generally got it. But we cannot go back to the old conditions. I do not particularly like the expression "the law of the jungle" and I am not enamoured of the argument about the impact upon the very large shop that a multiplicity of small men will have. When is it reasonable to expect—except in matters of life and death, when there has to be pharmaceutical trade on hand—shops to be open? With one or two exemptions, about which I shall take the liberty of expressing a few personal opinions later on, I think that to pass this Amendment would put the clock back and would be a bad thing for the consumers of the country, who would, in the last analysis, have to pay a terriffic increase in cost; because unless you are going to reimburse the employee, what are you going to do?
After all, we must not think that the only shop that would enjoy the liberty which the noble Lord so much wants would be the small shop round the corner. The medium shop would stay open, the competition would grow, and the cost of the article would go up. Eventually, this wonderful liberty would redound against the interests of the public. That has been my experience of over thirty-five years in the retail trade. There is an optimum

691
hour up to which it is, in all the circumstances, right and proper to offer a service to the public. And do not forget that service to the public does not begin and end with the opening and closing hours. Cost comes into it as well. I suggest that it would be setting the clock back years and years to say that every shop and every retail establishment in this country should be able to open at any hour that suits, not the demand of the public, but the whim of the shopkeepers, who are afraid that, if they close their doors, their competitors may get one other sale that they themselves will lose. So I hope the Government will resist, and that your Lordships will support the resistance of, this Amendment.
4.3 p.m.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I am one of those who are sorry that any changes such as are suggested in this clause are being brought about at the present time, for other reasons than those which have been mentioned by the noble Lords who have spoken. It is a truism to say these days that we live in times of grave economic difficulty. It is a truism, but none the less true, and I believe that the bringing in at this time of this Bill tends to produce a climate in industry as a whole which is bad—which is bad at this time, at any rate, when we have all to make a tremendous effort if we are to maintain and improve our standard of life in this country. The urge to produce more, to sell more abroad, is the theme song of every Minister and others when they go to the country. We have to produce more and sell more abroad of what our customers overseas require. Time after time one hears in most important speeches that it is what the customer overseas wants that we have to supply, and that the customer is not interested in our system of life or welfare or whatever it is here. All he is interested in is what are the prices, when can he have the goods, and is the quality right?
If that is so, surely this is an odd Bill and an odd clause to produce at the present time; for those individuals whom the Government are urging to produce more are not only producers but are also consumers. They are told that the customer overseas is always right; but,
692
when they become customers, they are told that they do not matter very much. I would suggest that it is difficult for the ordinary person to equate those two. If the customer overseas is always right, the customer at home should have some measure of attention paid to his needs. It seems to me that the cutting down of shop hours—I am not asking for them to be raised, or anything of that sort, as the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches asked—just at this moment must tend to impress upon people over here the view that, "Oh, all is so right that we need not bother". They will think that the convenience of the salesman and of the shopkeeper is of more importance than the demands of the consumer when he is a consumer at home, although we are always trying to tell them that, when he is the consumer abroad, his requirements are of paramount importance. That is why I cannot help feeling that a psychological error has been made in producing this Bill at this moment.
I am not criticising the Bill as such, but it seems to me an extraordinary measure, and especially the bringing in of this clause just at the time when industry is responding to the calls made upon it. I have personal reason to know how well that industry is responding, because I have the privilege of being Chairman of the Productivity Council in this country now and we get reports from all over the country. When people in industry are, in the main, responding splendidly to the demands made for productivity, it would appear to me that this beaurocratic measure, which might have been delayed for five years or ten years without any harm to anybody, just deadens the enthusiasm of the people of this country. Therefore I must say that I regret that it was brought in at this time.
4.9 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I think the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has performed a very useful service in moving this Amendment. I await with great interest my noble friend's reply. I want to give him some of the reasons why I have a good deal of sympathy with the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, though I shall certainly delay my decision until I know the Government's reply. I listened with the greatest interest to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, whose attitude to this Amendment

693
was sufficiently indicated in the vigorous speech lie made in support of his own earlier Amendment. We all know the noble Viscount's lifelong concern with the interests of the distributive workers. I should like to assure him—I think he will accept it from me—that I do not believe that this clause in the Bill is necessary for the interests of the distributive workers, and I shall endeavour briefly to say why.
Here, as the mover of the Amendment said, we are not discussing what hours shops shall be open, or what are to be the terms of employment of any employee. The terms of the employment of the employee are surely legitimate questions to be settled in negotiation between the employers and the trade unions. What we are here considering are the provisions of the criminal law. It does not in the least follow, because it may be a good thing, from the point of view of the terms of employment, that a worker shall not work more than a certain number of hours, or because it may be a good thing that shops should close generally at a particular time, that it is right to make it a criminal offence for anybody, whatever his wishes, to open a shop at a different hour. That does not follow in the least.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will be able to say, with perfect truth, that I have not spent any of my life in retail trade, but I have spent a great deal of my life in the law. I have formed, as my noble friend who has charge of the Bill has formed, views on what are the conditions that make it desirable to make a particular thing a criminal offence, and I find it most difficult to see what it is that makes it desirable to provide by criminal law that, irrespective of the terms of the employment of the employee, irrespective of the wishes of the owner of a one-man shop, a man shall be bound to close his shop at a certain hour and that, if he does not, he will commit an offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, interested me greatly when he mentioned the Catering Wages Act. Let me tell him my view on that. I remember, as a junior member of the Government, which I think I was at that time, when the late Mr. Bevin introduced the Bill which is now the Catering Wages Act, supporting it; and I remember why
694
I supported it. I remember the argument of Mr. Bevin that then impressed me. At that time, the Ministry of Labour—I do not remember the exact technical term—was directing workers into certain trades, and Mr. Bevin said, "How can I direct a worker into this particular trade unless I am satisfied that there is a good wages structure in that trade?" That seemed to me a good argument, and if there were any question of forcing a worker into the distributive trade, then, of course, we should have to be satisfied on a number of subjects as to what the law should be But in conditions of full employment, when a worker is not bound to go into a trade unless he likes the terms of employment it that trade, why we should think it necessary to have this elaborate provision of the criminal law is by no means so clear to me.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him? I do so only the better to follow his argument. Would he not agree with me that shops cannot keep open unless they employ labour; that the longer a shop is open, the higher the labour cost per unit sold must be, because of overtime and this, that and the other condition; and, therefore, that it costs more, in the long run, to the purchaser? Would the noble Lord agree with me on that point? I would not attempt to argue the legal point with him.
LORD CONESFORD: No, I would emphatically disagree. I was coming to that later.
As regards the cost, both noble Lords stated, as a reason for having this provision in the Bill and their support of it, that without it there would be great competition which would cause shops to be open later. If there were great competition, what would that mean?—that there were members of the public who demanded it. Does the noble Lord really suppose that members of the public would be indifferent to questions of price? My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is that I disagree with the two points he has made. First he asked: is it not true that every shopkeeper has employees? The answer to that is: no, it is not true; there is such a thing as a one-man shop. The second point is: is it not hound to put up the price? The answer to that is that that is not the

695
experience in those countries where there is not this limitation.
My own quarrel with the whole approach of this Bill—here, as a Tory, I think that I am in agreement with an argument put forward by a Liberal—is that it is entirely wrong to spread the idea that industries, shops or anything of the kind, are run solely in the interests of the particular people engaged in them, ignoring the general public. I know the sincerity of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition when he says that there are some consumers' organisations which are not against these restrictions. I accept that from him. But I also know that there are many consumers who greatly resent this lack of liberty. I know, too, that there are many shopkeepers who see no reason why they should be subjected to the criminal law if they wish to work a little harder.
I entirely disagreed with the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth (I may have misunderstood him), in one passage where he seemed to imply that, if this Amendment were carried, a great number of shops would remain open all night. I do not believe that for one moment. What they would do would depend on their own wishes. I entirely agree with the general proposition that liberty should be restricted where a good reason is shown, but I believe that the burden of proof is always on those who wish to restrict liberty. I say that there is nothing naturally immoral or obnoxious to the conscience in a shop remaining open after a particular hour. If people wish it to close at that hour, it is for them to prove that it is necessary. It is not for those who object to the restriction to prove that some great evil is done by the restriction. After all, it is possible to believe in liberty for its own sake; it is even possible to believe in the virtues of competition. In fact, I thought that noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench, at the time of the monopoly legislation, were, on various occasions, most conscious of the virtues of competition, but the scorn which they have thrown at competition in dealing with Clause I of the Bill contrasts rather oddly with their attitude on the other occasion.
To put the matter rather more philosophically, I would express my astonishment at how far we are moving from a
696
doctrine which will be familiar to my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill—the great doctrine enunciated in that classic of the law, Mayne's Ancient Law, when he describes the progress from status to contract—the progress in human affairs from the time when people's rights were decided for them by the status into which they were born to the state of affairs where things were decided by the contracts into which they chose voluntarily to enter. We have now reached the stage when we seem to be steadily progressing not from status to contract, but from contract back to status. People are not given, as they should be given, increasing rights to form their own contracts—in the case of workers, with the aid of their trade union, so that they can negotiate from equal strength. Freedom of contract is more and more restricted, and rights are more and more imposed by one's status—as a shopkeeper, as a landlord or in numerous other ways. I believe that, on the whole, the greater advance was in going from status to contract. I believe in freedom of contract, and that that freedom should be interfered with only where it can be shown that, if not interfered with, it would result in notable evils. I very much doubt whether that is the case here. For those reasons, speaking, perhaps, a little more from the point of view of political science and with the approach of a lawyer, I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment put forward from the Liberal benches this afternoon and I await with interest my noble friend's reply.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I had not intended to rise at this stage of the debate but wish to answer the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. He said it would be charged against him that he had not much knowledge of the retail trade, but that he thought that was counterbalanced by the fact that he had a good deal of knowledge of the law. His argument seemed to be that what applied to the law could, with necessary changes, apply to retail trade. If the noble Lord does not mean that, I do not know what his argument was.
LORD CONESFORD: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I thought my devotion, for a considerable part of my life, to the practice of law, perhaps gave me some knowledge of the legal theory which defined the conditions that should

697
be satisfied before a particular thing was made a crime. The noble Lord will find it all set out in an early chapter of Kenny's Criminal Law.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The point I was going to make before the noble Lord intervened, was that he seemed not to have realised the fundamental difference between the position of a lawyer and that of a retail trader. The difference is that the law of the country makes a monopoly in the hands of the lawyer. The lawyer may make contracts with his clients, and with solicitors working for his clients, under a system which is supported by the law of the land; and a "blackleg" cannot come in and work for a client, because the law forbids it. A man who is not a lawyer cannot don cap and gown and go into court to plead a case: he is not allowed to do so unless he is a member of one of the Inns of Court, and has properly been made a barrister-at-law according to the law of the land.
A shopkeeper is in an entirely different position. The great bulk of shopkeepers may make a contract. I agree with the noble Lord that contract to-day is a better plan than status. A band of shopkeepers can get together and make a contract with trade unionists who are going to be their employees; but they can be thwarted in their purpose by a "blackleg" who works his own people in a shop round the corner at an entirely different rate—a "sweated" rate. That cannot happen in the trade of the law, because the law of the land steps in to give to authorised solicitors and barristers a certain prerogative. That is where the difference comes in, and I suggest that that destroys the whole point of the noble Lord's speech.
LORD COLERAINE: I find myself so often and on so many points in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that I sometimes fear there may be a Liberal taint in my blood against which I must continually be on my guard. After listening to my noble friend, Lord Conesford, I believe lie stands in something of the same deadly peril. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I was surprised that Her Majesty's Government introduced this Bill. It seemed to me that Her Majesty's Ministers had many other preoccupations. With my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton, I have a pre-
698
dilection for that poor creature who has such a rough time in the modern world—the consumer; and, like him, I hold that we already suffer from many restrictions and controls. I see no great advantage in adding to them, even in a minor way. Nevertheless, I do not think I can go so far as the noble Lord in asking for the deletion of Clause 1. Rightly or wrongly, we have given the Bill a Second Reading, and it would seem to me to be unreasonable to delete that clause—which I suppose is the most important clause in the Bill. Nevertheless, I believe that Her Majesty's Government might give some consideration to the deletion of that part of Clause 1 which deals with the preservation of the power of local authorities to decree even earlier closing hours than Clause I lays down.
Before I develop my argument, I ought to declare that I have a private and particular interest in these matters in that, although I am in no sense speaking for that company, I am a director of a company which through its subsidiaries, operates well over 1,000 retail shops throughout the country. It seems to me that some argument can be made against the existing practice under the Shops Acts whereby local authorities have power to vary the 8 o'clock closing hour to an earlier hour. In contiguous areas, that situation leads to anomalies; it gives advantage to one trader as against another, and does, to some extent, prejudice the customer. Further, from the point of view of large-scale retail organisation, which is very economical organisation, it becomes difficult if, in fairly narrowly defined geographical areas, there is a great variation of practice between one street and another, or between one side of a street and the other.
I believe, therefore, that a case can be made even against the law as it stands. I find it difficult to believe that it is desirable in this new Bill to extend that practice to compelling closing at an earlier hour. My noble friend the Minister in charge of the Bill cited, at an earlier stage, the Gowers Report, particularly that part of it which laid down that, from the point of view of the customer, 6 o'clock was too early an hour for closing t and though the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, says that the Cowers Report is out of date, that is evidently not the view of the Government

699
in this particular respect. There is no doubt that for, I would say, a very considerable minority of shoppers, 6 o'clock, which might be the hour of closing in various areas, is far too early. A great many married women working in offices or in industry are probably not free until half past five in the evening. It seems to me that it will make life very difficult for them if they are compelled, through the vagary of a particular local authority, to make a long detour in order to find a shop that is open until 7 o'clock.
There is the further point, I think, that it enormously increases the difficulties of enforcement if there are varying practices as between one local authority and another. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will give consideration to the arguments which I have tried to put before them. I had thought of putting down an Amendment on the point, but on consideration I decided that it would be better if I raised it on the clause, so that the Government could consider it at their leisure, and then, if they thought fit, either introduce an Amendment at a later stage or consider favourably an Amendment if it should be moved in another place.
4.31 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but I should like to align myself very strongly with what the two noble Lords, Lord McCorquodale of Newton and Lord Coleraine, have just said. I fail to see the reason for this provision at the present time. A great deal has been said about customers and the public. Lord Coleraine just touched on what I had in mind. There are a great many customers of shops—I am not now speaking of shops where sweets are sold—who get away from work only a little before 6 o'clock. I feel that these people represent a very large proportion of the shopping public to which such frequent references have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I thought made a very good point when he said that what we want is a reasonable hour at which people in all walks of life would find it convenient to do their shopping. In my view, there is no question that 6 o'clock closing is too early.
700
I hope that the Government will do what they do not seem to have done at the moment, that is, consider the convenience of those to whom other noble Lords and I have just referred. They have been spoken of as the public and as consumers. To a great many of us here as consumers, this hour does not matter very much. But it is a different matter from the point of view of people working for their living in businesses, in factories or in big multiple stores. I am sure that they must find this 6 o'clock closing too early. I have yet to hear much grumbling on the part of the people one meets in going about on the question of shops being kept open late. I have heard a certain amount of criticism of the terms of the Bill so far as they mean earlier closing, for the reasons which I have given, which are quite simple reasons. I feel quite sure that if the Government will reconsider these points, they will find that there really is something in what other noble Lords and I have said.
One other thing I should like to say in regard to the whole of this question is this. A shopkeeper is not going to keep open unless he has customers regularly coming to his establishment and buying his goods. Presumably, if that is going on now, then quite definitely the customer is being suited by the hours at which shops are open, and particularly the smaller shops, which may keep open a little longer than the big multiple stores, selling various commodities which perhaps are not sought by the public who are buying consumer goods in the shops. I hope that the Government will consider the ramifications and the probable effects of this particular clause.
VISCOUNT THURSO: I wish to say just a few words, if the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will be kind enough to allow me to precede him. In the first place, I should like to express my agreement with the admirable speeches we have heard from Lord Grantchester and Lord Teviot. It is not people like the noble Lords and myself who are mainly affected by the hours of opening of shops. I think they suit us very well as they are. But I believe that people should have a certain freedom in their lives to enable them to adjust their times for shopping and so forth. It is comparatively easy for us. I often go to a shop at what might be unusual hours in

701
the eyes of people engaged in industry. I like it very much. I do not go for the purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has told us that he goes. I do not go to a shop in the evening to ask about the winner of the 2.30.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not go to shops at 2.30 in the afternoon: I go at 12 noon.
VISCOUNT THURSO: I thought the noble Lord said he went in the evening.
I agree with what the noble Lord opposite said about people who are working hard all clay. There are many such people—perhaps one might say that to-day they are by far the great majority of our population. If I look round among my neighbours in Twickenham, I note a great number of cases in which husband and wife are both working, so that their opportunities for shopping are limited. A great many of them have no motor cars, and very few have servants. Consequently, they find it difficult to fit time for shopping into their busy days. I think, therefore, that there is a strong case for doing what my noble friend has suggested and retaining a measure of freedom as to hours of opening and closing.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has suggested that people are ruining themselves by keeping their shops open just to meet competition, just for the sake of snatching an occasional order from someone who might want to shop at a late hour. I cannot believe that people are so foolish as to go on ruining themselves for such small motives. I am sure that matters will adjust themselves satisfactorily in the light of experience. People will not keep open their shops on unreal grounds, at unremunerative times. They will keep them open only when they find that it is good business to do so, and that there is a real demand for it on the part of the population around them.
The noble Lord also said he had heard this sort of argument in the old days, when the Catering Wages Act was under consideration. He said that he had heard all about the difficulties which would be met with at country hotels, and how difficult it would be for the tourist industry Where has the noble Lord been in recent years? Has he not heard of the
702
terrible difficulties which have arisen, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland, in small fishing hotels and places of that sort, as a result of the passing of the Catering Wages Act? Has the noble Lord not noted how one inquiry after another has had to be held, with a view to finding out how these difficulties can be overcome? There have been great difficulties, which have brought great threats to the prosperity of these hotels and to the tourist industry in Scotland. I should regret it if the noble Viscount. Lord Hailsham, and the Government were to lead us into similar difficulties in the retail trade of this country. I beg that we should follow the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Grantchester and retain the freedom and free play of supply and demand between the consumers and shopkeepers of this country.
LORD REA: I should like to raise one point relevant to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who seemed to imply that if my noble friend's Amendment went through there would be complete freedom for all shops to be open day and night. That is an ideal state of affairs which, for reasons put particularly by my noble friend. Lord Thurso, seem to me to be desirable. I think that I should be entitled to go out and buy anything I want, at any time of the day and night, if there is a shopkeeper willing to serve me and anxious to do so. But I would say that, as I interpret it, my noble friend's Amendment would not have that effect. If we leave out this clause, we should presumably go back to the hours as they now exist—namely, that shops can be open until 8 p.m., or 9 p.m. on late nights, instead of, as proposed, 7 p.m., and up to 8 p.m. on late nights.
The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition pointed out that, although the present closing hour is 8 p.m., with a late hour of 9 p.m., the vast majority of shops, in fact, shut at about 5.30 p.m. or 6 p.m. I concede that that is so, but the fact that they do that is no argument for saying that nobody should open up to 8 or 9 p.m. We think that we should allow for shopkeepers who may wish to open until 8 o'clock. Nobody can force a shopkeeper to stay open until 8 o'clock, and most of them close at 5.30 or 6 p.m. That is not complete freedom, but it is more freedom than is given under the

703
present Bill. My noble friend Lord Grantchester informs me that he has no intention of increasing the hours of work by his Amendment. They will not be affected in any way. The hours of opening should not be put back so that they would be an inconvenience to the public, for whom, after all, the shops exist. They are not the property of trade unions or manufacturers; and they do not necessarily exist to give occupation to shopkeepers or employment to shop assistants.
4.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should not like this Amendment to be decided without somebody from this side saying a few words about it. We have had a most interesting debate. Three noble Lords from the Liberal Benches and three from the Benches supporting the Government have spoken, and I have been amazed at what I have listened to, especially from the Liberals. What passed across my mind was that here was one of the reasons for the decline and fall of the Liberal Party. Now we can understand how it was that at least 75 per cent. of the members of the Liberal Party up to 1914 gradually passed into other ranks, either to the Left or to the Right.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: May I interrupt the noble Viscount to say that the reason for the decline in numbers of the Liberal Party is that some have departed to the Labour Party to advocate restrictions, and the revival of the Liberal Party will come when we choose for freedom, as we are doing on this occasion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That argument used to work very well when the working classes had only a small modicum of education. That used to work very well in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, when almost every one of the arguments used to-day were used to show why the workers should go on and on, working for longer hours, and why boys should go down the mines before the age of ten and work for long hours. It was argued that that must be done in order to have the cheapest possible coal for the consumer, and that, by getting the cheapest possible coal, we should be able to increase exports overseas.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: The noble Viscount really should not indulge in remarks of that kind, because he knows that the question of working hours has nothing to do with this Amendment, nor even the hours of opening. My Amendment would enable a shopkeeper to open at two in the afternoon and keep open until nine, no longer than he opens now; but he should have freedom to choose the hours. I do not want him to work one minute longer than he wishes, or to employ a person one minute longer than he is willing to be employed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Lord may express that view, but anybody with experience of legislation on this matter and of working for reforms in this matter, and with knowledge of the Early Closing Association and the struggle of the trade unions, knows perfectly well that unless there is protection of this kind under the Shops Act, as well as by other methods, the employees of shops are bound in the end to be exploited. And they have been so exploited. Do noble Lords know what it is for those who have grown up in the working class? I can see my own mother now going out to work—a widow with four children; my father died before I was old enough to be able to remember him. At what hour did she go to work?—at 7.30 in the morning. And at what hour did she return?—at 10 o'clock at night, day after day, week after week. Do you think that we hold these rebellious views because we are stupid? We have rebellious views because of what we have seen and because we know what workers have to be saved from. Your Lordships ought to be aware of the ordinary lives of the ordinary families in this country. That is why we plead for decent hours of work. My mother worked for a shop in those days. At different times in the last seventy years people in all Parties have co-operated to reduce the hours of work. Apparently, the noble Lords who have spoken to-day are going against the stream of progress. That is what is the matter with the views expressed this afternoon.
It has been said that if this clause is left out we shall retain the status quo. Why should we retain the status quo? Almost every other section of workers in this country have had the advantage in the last thirty years of steadily improving their hours of employment and

705
their remuneration. Generally speaking, none have been so far behind as the distributive workers. I have told your Lordships before, on another issue altogether, that even to-day not more than 10 per cent. of employees in the distributive trades are in a trade union, largely because of the number of shops with one, two or three assistants, who are almost incapable of being organised. Those people have to put up with conditions to an even worse degree, except in so far as the large trade union section have gained improvements and they can crawl up behind them and take advantage of benefits for which they have not been able to organise themselves. What nonsense it is to say that there is no connection between this Bill and the hours and remuneration of the people employed in shops! There is every connection between the two. The longer the shops are kept open, the worse, in the long run, will be the conditions in general for those who are employed in them.
We have heard from noble Lords opposite this afternoon that they are speaking especially for the consumer. They were not speaking for the consumer in the "hungry forties" of last century, when the consumers' movement really began. There is only one really great consumers' movement in the country: there are nearly 12 million of us, and we are behind not only the clause, as it stands, but the further progress that we have failed to get. Those are the people who speak for the consumers. Let me say this to those who sit on the Liberal Benches. Sidney Webb once said in one of his books—I cannot remember at the moment which one it was—that the people who talk about setting everything free must also remember this: that freedom to compete must involve freedom to combine. And if freedom achieves such conditions as the people will revolt against, they have every right to combine to secure their interests.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Hear, hear! Why not?
EARL FERRERS: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Viscount. I do not wish to distract him from his enthusiasm, but would he not agree that if one was employed in a shop that kept open long hours, which made one revolt against that kind of employment, one would then take
706
employment with one of those progressive shops that shut at 6 o'clock?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: A man may at the present time; but under the system of "free for", and of not having an ordered and planned economy, who knows how long full employment will last? What will be the choice left to the workers who will be thrown out, as some are being thrown out to-day? It all depends on what one can get when one is out of work, and there is every reason to see that the conditions of the worker are reasonably protected by the action of their representatives in the Houses of Parliament who make the laws.
LORD REA: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt. He seems to suggest that there have been criticisms from some parts of the Committee thaw hours should be longer, that conditions should not be good and that the worker should not be in such a good state. I have failed to notice anything like that in the debate.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: At any rate, we will go this far: that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, if it were carried, would mean that the kind of hours they would work would be longer than are stipulated in the Bill.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: Certainly not. I want shopkeepers to have freedom to choose what hours they will open. I do not necessarily mean longer hours they may tie shorter hours. I know of one shopkeeper who wants to close for the next three months, because it suits his tax position. If he wants to do that, I want him to be able to do it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: He must be a fortunate retailer to be in that position. But what I am interested to know is what will happen to his employees for those three months. Are they put on the dole? What sort of protection is there for them? We do get some extraordinary arguments advanced when we deal with this sort of subject.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and especially his remarks about the change from status to contract. There is little in the idea of contract to the distributive workers. In the days before the reforms

707
brought about by law, before the passing of the Minimum Wages Act of 1924 there were very poor conditions in the rural areas of our country, some of which the noble Lord knows so well, for the agricultural worker. And even to-day, when you revert to the sacred argument of contract, you see farm workers having to go, because of the practice of a particular county, once a year to be hired in public under a new contract. There are fewer than there used to be, because there is a chance of getting reasonable conditions while there is a Statute on our law-books like the 1924 Act. But I would not emphasise the great advantages coming from the movement from status to contract, because some of us have watched that and studied it carefully. We are here claiming that an Amendment of this kind would be reactionary and reversionary, and would not give even the conditions which the Government are willing to give in their presentation of the Bill. I hope that the Government will be reassured that, if they resist this extraordinary Amendment, the Opposition will go into the Lobby to support them.
LORD DERWENT: I would make the plea to my noble friend, when he comes to reply, that out of his legal knowledge he will tell us what this Amendment means. When the debate started, thought that I knew, but since listening to all the speeches with great care I do not know whether it means the status quo, or what it was in 1840, or what. I should be grateful if he would deal with that.
4.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We have had an interesting and rather wide-ranging debate on this Amendment. We have had philosophy, Mayne's Ancient Law and the Catering Wages Act; psychology, economics and freedom, wage slavery and goodness knows what else! The more profound and deep-thinking my noble friends on all sides of the Committee become, the more pragmatical I feel myself getting. I start from the proposition that we are in Committee on the Shops Bill dealing with an Amendment. The House has committed itself to giving the Bill a Second Reading, and is now engaged in trying to make it a better Bill. There are seventy-nine clauses in the Bill, and we have reached only the first clause.
708
The proposal made is that we should leave out the first clause, which in some ways is the most important clause of the Bill. That is what we are discussing. My noble friend Lord Derwent expressed a certain amount of doubt as to what the effect would be, and in fact it is not easy to see. I can tell noble Lords what would be the result of accepting the Amendment and nothing more; that would be quite clear. I must say that, right up to the time when the noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke, I was under the impression that that is what the noble Lord who moved the Amendment intended; but when the noble Lord. Lord Rea, spoke, with all the authority of his Party, I realised that he intended the opposite. The effect of the Amendment, if it were accepted, and nothing more was done, would be. clearly, to take away the restriction on hours of opening of shops altogether. It would not leave the status quo in operation, but would destroy the restriction on the closing hours of shops altogether. The reason why it would have that effect is because, later on in the Bill, your Lordships will find a repeal clause, and that repeals all the existing restrictions. Clause 1 inserts a new set of restrictions. It follows, therefore, that if you simply do that which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, proposes—that is, remove Clause 1 and leave in the repeal clause—you do away with all types of shop legislation affecting the hours of opening. There can be no doubt that that is the effect of the Amendment, as it stands.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Viscount. I think my noble Leader misunderstood. My intention in moving the deletion of Clause 1 was to leave complete freedom—I realised that there was a repeal clause to the Schedule—so that it would leave the matter completely open. One noble Lord who spoke appealed to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to leave it as it is; but that was a different suggestion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am glad that the noble Lord has made the position plain. He had in fact made it plain to me when he first spoke, but from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rea who, I understood, was the Leader of a united Party on this occasion, I supposed that I had been in error in construing the noble Lord's intention. I thought that I was right

709
and that the Leader of the Liberal Party was not correct on this occasion.
It is, therefore. to the Amendment as it is now intended to be that I will address myself, first of all, although I hope to fit in, in the course of my remarks, both the views of my noble friend, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who I think argued for the status quo, and my noble friend Lord Coleraine, who argued for a modified form of the Bill—that is to say, a form of the Bill in which the various local options provided for by part of subsection (1), and parts of subsection (2) and (3) of Clause 1, would go. I start, therefore, from this proposition: Is it desirable to omit Clause I with the effect intended? As I have said, the effect, of course, would be to destroy the Bill altogether, apart from certain subsidiary projects which I doubt would be worth retaining. It would have been, therefore, in some ways better to debate this question on Second Reading, but I do not complain that it has been debated now, because, quite clearly, it is a matter which has to be threshed out.
I start, without, I think, very profound philosophical preconceptions either way. I believe this is the sort of thing which comes to be dealt with by balancing one consideration against another, considering the evidence on both sides, and seeking to obtain that rather elusive thing, justice. It is quite true, in a sense—and I think the Government have given effect to it in this Bill—that the interest of the consumer is paramount. It is quite wrong to suggest, as my noble friend, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, did, that we say the consumer does not matter so much. On the contrary, if he will forgive me, the whole burden of my song in resisting the first Amendment was exactly that he mattered more than anybody else. But he is not the only person who matters. The shop assistant matters, and flatters a great deal. The noble Viscount, in his natural disappointment because I would not accept the first Amendment, twitted me with not having made the kind of fervent speech which, for some reason, he anticipated my grandfather would have made, had he anticipated my father's action in accepting a Peerage. I will do my best on this occasion to satisfy the noble Viscount, because I think there is a great deal in what he says on this occasion.
710
It is perfectly true, of course, that the general rule in a free society is freedom of contract. Mayne's Ancient Law,, widely known to most of us, not in the course of practice but in the somewhat earlier and more spacious days of student-hood, does lay down this general rule, and there is a great deal in it. But when freedom of contract reached its apogee, at about the forties of the last century, it gave rise to what the leader of my Party described as the intolerable weight of serfage. Did not Disraeli refer to it in one of the most notable of his novels? One of the corollaries of the move from status to contract is the fact that socially vulnerable groups do, from time to time, require the protection of legislation. What groups do when they require it, and what degree of protection they should be afforded, is not, with due respect to my noble friends on both sides of the House, a question requiring primarily profound philosophical thought; it is pre-eminently a matter for the practical legislator to observe in the light of what actually goes on in the world as he sees it. That is why we have legislation limiting the Factories Acts.
In the 19th century my Party was largely kept alive by defending the cause of the socially vulnerable groups who were employed in factories in various ways, and limiting the freedom of the individual—as it was then put by the Liberals, and as it has been put now—to work as he liked, for how long he liked and for whomever he liked. it was the intolerable weight of serfage created by the absolute freedom of contract which led to social legislation under the great Lord Shaftesbury. I personally support this Bill, and the form in which it appears in Clause 1, on precisely the same theoretical and practical grounds as those on which Lord Shaftesbury put forward his Factories Acts—that is to say, that there is a real hardship upon the employee and upon the entrepreneur if they are left to the unbridled effect of competition. I think I would go all the way with my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton in saying that in this matter freedom and the individual interest must be paramount. I shall endeavour to show the Committee that it is precisely that interest to which we have given effect by this particular form of legislation which we have adopted.

711
There is no evidence at all of any substantial movement, anywhere in the country, against the hours we propose. To hear the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, make his speech, one would suppose one was debating this question de novo—indeed, in the time of my grandfather. We never had a glimpse of the rather obvious fact that we have been living under restricted hours of shop opening, at any rate since I have been an adult—since the end of the First World War, which is since my quite early childhood. There never has been, so far as I know, any important organised complaint on the part of the consumer that he has been maltreated by the limitations imposed upon him.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: The noble Viscount is quite right that there is no organised opposition, but he has only to go into any of the big offices of the City and hear what the stall think about the present position.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not so sure that the offices in the City have been really so seething with indignation for the last forty-five years on this matter as one would suppose. If they had been, I cannot believe that the great offices in the City would not have managed, in one way or another, in one House of Parliament or the other, to make their views known. The more subjective observations which one overhears in conversation in private life are not always a reliable guide to public opinion. I am bound to say, therefore, that I am not impressed with the evidence of a supposed indignation on the part of consumers.
On the contrary, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said in the debate we had on his Amendment, the evidence is that by far the greatest number of consumers would be satisfied with 6 o'clock, and that by far the greatest number of shopkeepers already shut at that hour. I resisted the Amendment of the noble Viscount only because I pointed out that there was a marginal number of shopkeepers and shop users who were not satisfied with 6 o'clock closing. But extend it to 7 o'clock, and the number is so small that the evidence is that it is infinitesimal except in relation to particular trades. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, proposes to raise in a separate Amendment the question of the sweet and tobacco trade. I
712
therefore do not refer to it particularly, except to say that, so far as I am aware, the only people I have ever heard complain of the existing restrictions, which have been on for forty years, are those who belong to that particular kind of trade, and the kind of trade to which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred, which is already dealt with. The tourist centre is already dealt with by way of exception in another clause of the Bill. Therefore, I would venture to say that this indignation is misplaced. It bears no relation to truth except in regard to two individual cases, one of which is an exception and one of which is open to discussion for the purpose of making it an exception.
On the other hand, there is very strong evidence, such as has been brought forward by the noble Viscount, of a strong organised movement of opinion in favour of early closing. The noble Lord refers to the trade unions, the co-operative societies and the Early Closing Association. They are powerful bodies of opinion. I sometimes wish that they were more fully represented in this House, although what they lack in quantity is sometimes made up in quality with protagonists like the noble Viscount. The fact is that that trade union opinion is behind the principle of the Bill and would, if any thing, like to go further with it. Your Lordships can say, if you like, that the trade unions do not represent the views of the workers. It may be that they do not, but I do not know why anyone else should represent them or know them any better. It is certainly true that the shop assistants are not particularly well organised into trade unions, because, of course, the distributive trade is a trade which it is particularly difficult to organise into trade unionism. It is, so one would think, precisely for the reason that trade unionism in the trade is relatively weak that one must at any rate contemplate without misgiving the possibility of legislation to protect them. It is all very well for my noble friend Lord Conesford to say that we are not discussing the interests of the distributive worker, or for the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment to say that we are not discussing the interests of the distributive worker. I know that these things are said in good faith, and with every sincerity, but I happen to disagree with them.

713
The fact is that those who represent the distributive worker think otherwise. The fact is that the Gowers Committee's Report, which embodied a careful review of the subject, even, if it is ten years old, thinks otherwise; and it happens to be, for the little that it is worth, that I think otherwise too, because I believe, quite sincerely, that if we did away with restrictions in the hours of shop opening, we should find a deterioration in the conditions of employment. It is perfectly true, of course, that in an ideal world it would be possible to invent legislation which achieved the same result by a different route—I do not deny it. You could, of course, introduce a Bill for five, six, eight or twelve hours a day for shop assistants and office workers and achieve your result by that kind of method. I myself fancy that shop owners would find it a great deal more onerous than the method which is now proposed, and I fancy that the consumers would not like it any better.
I also venture to point out—because this is not really a matter of opinion: it is a matter of certainty—that, although theoretically it would be possible to invent such legislation, if the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord were carried and became the law the shop assistant and the distributive worker would be left without any protection at all, because, whatever may be done in theory, such legislation does not exist in practice. I say quite frankly to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that I do not believe that the trade union method of negotiation, much as I respect it in much better organised industries, and much as I recognise its efficacy, would be sufficient in an industry of this kind to give protection were all forms of restriction to be taken away. Therefore, I cannot accept the view either that this is not a social reform or that in a world in which all the restrictions were swept away there would be anything like the freedom or justice or that kind of balance between the interests of different sections of the community—between the consumer, in this case, and the shopkeeper and the worker—that I am sure, despite all theoretical statements to the contrary, every noble Lord in this House is trying to achieve.
Nor am I prepared to accept that this is an Amendment which would benefit the small shopkeeper. It is, of course,
714
the case that there is quite a strong movement inside the sweet and tobacco trade for exemption; that comes from the small shopkeeper. That point we can consider separately. But, generally speaking, I believe it true that the small shopkeepers are behind the Bill rather than the Amendment. At any rate, that is the view of the National Chamber of Trade, whose representative came to see the Government in the last few weeks and pressed the Government to go on with the Bill, precisely because they regarded it as in the interests of the small shopkeeper. Your Lordships may say that that is a restrictive practice. In a sense, all social legislation and all legislation is a restrictive practice. But on this matter one cannot have it both ways. One cannot claim that one's Amendment is in the interests of the freedom of the small shopkeeper and then, when it turns out that the small shopkeeper does not want it, abuse tile small shopkeeper because he is guilty of wanting a restrictive practice. Although each situation is rational in itself, those are not rational situations to hold together.
The noble Lord who moved this Amendment and certain other noble Lords have spoken in glowing terms of a coming era of shift working and staggered hours: that that is the great future of the distributive trade. I wonder. One thing I am quite certain of is that, if it is, it spells the end of the small shopkeeper, because he cannot afford to work in shifts or compete with the staggered hours of a multiple store or modern bazaar against workers working in shifts against him, his wife and his children. He is apt to look at it as if the removal of the restriction against himself means, in the long run, that he is bound to be a drudge, with his wife a drudge and his children drudges, working in a shop because he cannot afford to employ assistants in order to compete with the multiple stores which can employ assistants on eight-hour shifts. That may be open to argument, but, again, you cannot have it both ways. This thing which is alleged to be done out of pity and compassion for the small shopkeeper cannot, at the same time, he run as a great enterprising Amendment which is going to open the way to the shift working of the multiple store, because the two are antagonist interests. I am afraid that on that ground I could not accept it

715
Now it is said: "Of course, psychologically this is so bad. It is true that we have had shops legislation for forty years"—perhaps we had forgotten that. "We are now going to upset the tourist trade; we are going to break up the export drive and we are going to turn our backs on the expanding economy because it is proposed to reduce the late hour from 8 o'clock to 7 o'clock." I am bound to tell your Lordships that I do not, in fact, share the anxieties which are expressed in that direction. I cannot see another ounce of goods not being sold abroad because the shops in Bond Street are closed at 7 o'clock. I do not see anything inconsistent in a modern society with the drive for an expanding economy and the regulation of the distributive trade being regulated in this way, whilst factories are regulated by law according to hours and conditions. Moses is the man tile noble Lord ought to be attacking: he started this business with the Fourth Commandment. He was not talking about freedom on that occasion. He recognised a very simple fact. He recognised that, if it was socially desirable to have periods of rest, it had to be organised socially, by means of legislation—and I am rasher surprised to hear the noble Lord, who is such a pillar of the Evangelical Church, suggesting that there is something slightly immoral about supporting restrictions of this kind.
The evidence is that people who do not have to work too long often work harder in the hours during which they work. I have always insisted, when I have had hard periods of work, in fighting, both for myself and for my employees, to see that they get off for an adequate time. I do not believe it is in the spirit of enterprise to go drudging on for hour after hour; I do not think it is in the spirit of freedom; and, for that matter, where it can be shown that hardship would result from doing it, I do not think it is in the spirit of the Conservative Party.
I come now to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Coleraine—and I must say that I was attracted by it. I agree with him that the variation between locality and locality can cause anomalies and even injustice. In one respect, I would go further than he does. Clause
716
1 (2), which provides an elaborate series of differentials for the local option, seems to me to complicate the clause a great deal without adding noticeably to its efficacy. I will, if he will allow me to say so, report to my right honourable friend what he has said about the matter. I feel sure that what he said will be considered sympathetically. I should not like to go further—I speak as one of the scribes and not with authority, but I hope that I may win his sympathy by telling him that I will mention what he said; it seemed to me to correspond with a possible change in the Bill.
That, I think, more or less concludes what I have to say. I sincerely believe that the Committee would be making a great mistake in passing this Amendment. I do not believe that the Committee yet realise, even having heard the noble Viscount opposite, quite what stormy passions, or quite what organised opposition, the Amendment would rouse in the community if it were passed. I have yet to hear a tittle of evidence that the Committee which reported favourably on this change, were wrong yin their judgment of the case, which was that the hours proposed were, if anything, conservative from the point of view of the consuming public; that there was no real evidence of a substantial demand for shopping outside these hours, but that there was real evidence that, if these hours were not adhered to, the marginal demand might be such as to give rise to considerable hardship and injustice, not only on the part of those who were employed, but also on the part of those who work for themselves.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I should like to thank the noble Viscount for what he has said, with much of which I agree most heartily. I should also like to thank other noble Lords who have either supported, in whole or in part, the idea that I tried to put forward. I am not at all convinced that there is any unnecessarily competive element between the new and developing methods—the new big bazaar which might employ a shift, or open for a limited number of hours to suit its customers—and the small shopkeeper. I look upon the role of the small shopkeeper as a specialised rôle. If the noble Viscount will go across the Channel and see the owner sitting in his or her shop until 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening, willing to talk and pass the time with

717
anyone who comes into the shop and likes to look around, he cannot talk about sweated labour.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Will he tell us why the Poujade movement is so strong in France?
A NOBLE LORD: Taxation.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I do not think I need go into that. Anyhow, the noble Viscount thinks that sweets should be served at any time. I have no objection to sweets being served at odd hours if people are willing to serve sweets. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, will speak on that and give his reasons. But why sweets? Are sweets and tobacco to be a favoured trade? I object to this sort of discrimination for those who want sweets and tobacco. Why not for people who want bread? I will not press this matter any further to-day, but I hope that the noble Viscount will look at it again. If he feels then as he does now, all I can say is, why did he raise this question at all to alter the existing hours and attempt to cut them down? I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
5.25 p.m.
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new Clause:
Special provision for confectionery
"Section one of this Act shall in its application to the trade or business of selling mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, or ice-cream (with or without wafers or edible containers) have effect as if—

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) thereof for the reference to seven o'clock there were substituted a reference to nine o'clock.

(b) in paragraph (b) of that subsection for the reference to eight o'clock there were substituted a reference to ten o'clock; and

(c) in subsection (3) thereof for the reference to six o'clock there were substituted a reference to eight o'clock."

The noble Lord said: We have listened for over two hours to a lively, interesting and widespread debate on the main purposes of this Bill. But now, as the noble Viscount has said, We have got to get down to the job of trying to make it a better Bill. What I have to say will deal with only one aspect of this Bill. Before
718
say anything else I feel that noble Lords will agree with me in congratulating the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill on the conduct of what he has admitted to be his first Bill. So far, I think he has done it magnificently.
When this Bill was before your Lordships' House on Second Reading, I intimated that on the Committee stage I should have something further to say on one aspect of the Bill which I think needs revision. It arises on Clause 1 and has to do with the hours of sale of chocolate and confectionery, together with soft drinks, ice-creams and tobacco lines. The Committee will, of course, be aware that the present legislation on shop hours has admitted the special case for these products, and has allowed them to be sold after the ordinary permitted hours. Under the present Act, shops generally have to close at 8 p.m. but chocolate, confectionery and tobacco, et cetera may be sold to 9.30 on an ordinary week-day and on what is called a late day, which is usually a Saturday, until 10 p.m. The present Bill seeks to bring forward the closing hours of shops generally to 7 p.m., but without any dispensation for the sweet shop, et cetera, thus depriving the industry of seventeen selling hours a week which they now enjoy—and moreover, the very hours which are the most important to many in this industry.
I am addressing your Lordships to-day at the express wish of all sections of the confectionery industry—the retailers, the wholesalers and the manufacturers: they are all unanimously behind what I have to say. I have also been asked to express the views of the cinema industry, which is also seriously affected by this Bill. The confectionery industry alone employs, in all its branches, over 300,000 people, and employs some —100 million worth of capital in the manufacturing side alone. I am sure the Committee are well aware of the reasons which have always been accepted for allowing sweetstuff shops and tobacco shops to be open longer than ordinary shops. People buy chocolates and sweets largely on the impulse of the moment. That is why the turnover of the confectionery trade is largely closely bound up with the hours at which the goods are on sale. If you are unable to buy that bar of chocolate or bag of sweets in the evening because the shop is closed, you do not buy two to-morrow; that

719
sale is definitely lost. But if you need a pair of shoes and cannot get them today you will most certainly buy them to-morrow. The sale of confectionery, ice cream and tobacco is closely bound up with the public's hours of leisure and entertainment. That is why the evening hours, which this Bill proposes to cut off, are so important, both to the public and to the industry.
The confectionery industry of which I speak particularly, and with which my family have had connections for three generations, is a very important one, with total retail sales of upwards of —250 million a year; so that the loss of only a small percentage of those sales would amount, in total, to many millions of pounds over the year. The confectionery manufacturing industry is highly organised. Generally speaking, it is highly efficient and includes some of the most progressive firms in the country. That means that their overheads are closely watched and the loss of a substantial amount in turnover, with its consequent increased costs, might be damaging to the very considerable export trade, amounting to-day to over —20 million a year, much of it to dollar countries. I know from my own experience that this export business is done on very small margins and sometimes on no margin of profit at all; and any increase in costs might well affect those dollar sales.
The effect of cutting off sales of sweets in the evening hours would be even more serious to the retailer. We have had a recent survey, and find that nearly two-thirds of the sweet shops in the country now keep open during the evenings. That cutting off of evening sales would undoubtedly mean that large numbers of shopkeepers would have to close down. Those shops often pay very high rent because their premises are in the middle of a town near to the entertainment houses. To take away from them the best shopping hours of the day would mean that many of them would have to go out of business; the public would go without their sweets and the pleasure of evening entertainment would be lost—a sort of gloom for gloom's sake.
When, in 1947, the Gowers Committee made their Report, on which this Bill is largely based, conditions in the confectionery industry, as in many others, were quite different. I know that the
720
Committee did all they could to say what would be right for normal conditions, but we must bear in mind that in the last ten years there have been major developments such as even people in the trade like myself would not have envisaged. In 1947, the public were rationed to four ounces of confectionery per week each. In the following year, this ration was reduced to three ounces, and shops could sell their meagre ration in a few hours each week. To-day, the picture is entirely the reverse. Manufacturers have modernised and enlarged their factories, and there is strenuous and healthy competition between them. The public, too, have a large choice of the best confectionery in the world—for this country leads all others in this industry. To-day the shopkeepers need more, not fewer, hours in which to serve the public adequately and to make a living. I am not pressing for longer hours, of course, but only for the same hours as at present.
I understand that the National Chamber of Trade, which is perhaps the chief protagonist for this Bill, has expressly stated, in its case to the Ministry, that it wholeheartedly supports the maintenance of late evening closure for the chocolate, confectionery and tobacco industry. I have talked the matter over with many people, including Members of this House, and everyone to whom I have spoken has agreed with the reasonableness of our case. Your Lordships may wonder why the promoters of the Bill seek to deprive the public and the confectionery trade of these particular trading hours. I believe the reason is difficulty of enforcement. It all boils down to the fact that a small percentage of shops, known as "mixed" shops, sell confectionery as a sideline to other things, like groceries or stationery. It is alleged that some of these shops take advantage of the position to stay open later, ostensibly to sell confectionery, but that in fact they sell a few other goods "on the sly." I believe that the difficulty of enforcement arising from the mixed shop has been greatly exaggerated, and that we are talking only of, say, one shop in a thousand. I would ask: is that sufficient reason to weigh against the legitimate claims of a large, efficient and important national industry, not to mention the convenience of the public and their right to enjoy their leisure unhampered by petty restrictions?
Her Majesty's Government appear to have accepted this point of view, for we appreciate that the Bill continues to allow confectionery and tobacco to be sold on early closing days and Sundays, when the same alleged difficulty of enforcement will apply. I sympathise with the enforcement authorities who wish to have everything nice and tidy, but I am reminded of a cartoon which I saw in Punch when I was a child. It showed a customer coming in to see a business man in his office. He had put in a new filing system, and all around there were beautiful filing, cabinets with men running up and clown ladders. The customer asked, "How is the new filing system going?" and the business man told him, "Magnificently; it is a perfect success." The customer said, "I am very glad, for you have put a Lot of thought into it." Then he asked, "And how is business?" and the businessman replied, "Business? Oh, we have given up business. We are busy filing now." I am anxious to keep business going, even if it is not neat and tidy for the authorities.
I need not remind the Committee, for everybody has mentioned the fact, that the hours of shop assistants are not affected by this Bill; nor are their terms and conditions of labour. I should mention that some shops now able to employ assistants would be so adversely affected by this Bill that they would no longer be able to do so. The Bill continues to permit the sale of confectionery in the evenings in cafés, restaurants and railway stations, which is quite right; but that only strengthens the case for retaining for the legitimate confectioner the right to remain open after 7 o'clock. To permit it for one and not the other would be unfair discrimination. For example, a sweetshop may be next door to a café The sweetshop would have to close at 7 o'clock, but the café could keep open a great deal longer. Somebody might come into the café to buy a bar of chocolate. He is supposed to eat it there, but can one imagine him standing at the counter until he has finished his bar of chocolate? No; he would put it in his pocket and eat it outside. Yet the shop next door has to close.
Finally, I should like to say a few words on the Bill as it affects cinemas and theatres. I have already mentioned that sales of chocolates, sweets, ice cream and
722
tobacco are closely associated with the entertainments industry and are, in fact, all a part of show business. The cinema industry already carries a very heavy burden in the amount of entertainment tax, amounting, I believe, to some —30 million a year. This Bill would add further burdens. It is no secret that the cinema industry derives great financial assistance from the sales to its patrons of these products. I have seen it stated in recent years that the major part of the profit of quite large cinema circuits comes from their sales of these things. I am told that ninny small cinemas would have to close down without this ancillary source of income. True, the Bill purports to allow them and others to sell sweets and tobacco but only—and I quote the Bill:
"so long a the sale is effected in a part of the theatre to which no members of the public other than members of the audience have access."
I am informed that the great bulk of sales of confectionery, put by one large circuit as high as 80 per cent., is sold not in the auditorium but in the confectionery kiosk in the public foyer. It is sought to treat these sale points in cinemas as ordinary shops which must close at 7 o'clock. It would be quite unfair to make shops near the cinemas, shops which may be part of the cinema premises and for which a high rent is paid to the cinema, close at 7 o'clock while a shop round the corner remains open.
My suggested Amendment to the Bill would meet both objections at the same time. It would permit sales of confectionery in ordinary sweet-shops and places of entertainment and it would permit the public to be served. I have purposely suggested the hour of 9 p.m. on the ordinary evening, because I am informed that by that time the "last house" in cinemas and theatres will have assembled, so that everybody will be happy. I see that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has a similar Amendment down on Clause 11. It may be that that is the better place for such an Amendment. I am not as experienced in these matters as is the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but we are both trying to effect the same thing. The whole of the confectionery trade and the public seem to be unanimous in attaching importance to maintaining the right to sell sweets and other such things in the evening. This can be achieved without departing

723
in any way from the main provisions of the Bill, without causing any real difficulties in practice and without prejudicing the position of the shop assistants. The effect of my Amendment would be to allow confectionery shops to stay open for the sale of their products and tobacco, on ordinary days until 9 o'clock and on late days—usually Saturdays—until 10 o'clock. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mackintosh of Halifax.)
5.42 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Having fixed, by Clause I, the basic principle, this is where we come, as the noble Viscount has said, to the exemptions. Exemptions have bedevilled shop legislation ever since shop legislation existed. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will agree with me, when I say that what we have to do is to find a mean that is reasonable. "Reasonable to whom?" it might be asked. I would suggest—reasonable to the consumer in this particular case. I think that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment has gone too far. I think that the hours of 10 o'clock and 9 o'clock at night for the ordinary shop are too late. I am leaving out of account, for the moment, the aspect that the noble Lord brought in at the last part of his speech—the cinema and the theatre. I think that they are to be treated entirely separately and that on this question as it affects them a separate case is arguable.
I have in mind the ordinary man in the street—if I may use that expression—and his wife. I suppose that the noble Lord, who knows far more about the confectionery trade than I do, would admit that the peak hours of selling in sweet shops are somewhere in the region of 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock. People are then going to places of amusement such as the cinema, and I think it would be rather hard if a man were deprived of the opportunity of calling at his local confectionery shop on the way there and buying his wife a box of chocolates. I am not going so far as to say that the Government are heading for domestic trouble in denying husbands the pleasure of buying their wives boxes of chocolates, but I cannot see that it would do any harm whatever to allow that. I think it is right: I think
724
it is calculated to meet the convenience of the public.
As Lord Mackintosh of Halifax has mentioned, I have an Amendment on this matter which I shall put forward at a later stage. I have tried, in that Amendment, to keep within what I thought was the scope of the Bill by bringing in permissive hours in precisely the same way as they are permitted now—in other words, the extra hour, and the early closing extra hour. I seek to apply them to the Clause I hours, thereby bringing the total permitted hours down by that amount. I think that is better than the noble Lord's Amendment. I do not like the hours which the noble Lord proposes. I would support the principle, however. In regard to the cinema or theatre I think the concession should apply only to places to which the general public do not have free access, places where only bona fide patrons of the theatre or cinema can purchase sweets and so forth. I believe that that is absolutely essential. I do not think that a cinema kiosk to which the ordinary public, not attending the cinema, has access should remain open longer than a shop. My Amendment seeks to confine purchases at such places to the bona fide members of the audience at the place of entertainment in question.
Where I find myself opposed to the noble Lord is that I think his hours are too long. I cannot see that the public generally need facilities for being served until ten o'clock. It may be that in certain areas at certain times of the year special provisions are called for. But we are dealing with the ordinary run. I have great sympathy for people at seaside resorts—not so much the shopkeeper as the people who are visitors at seaside resorts. They are on holiday, and why should they not be allowed to enjoy this amenity? But I fear I am getting away from this particular Amendment. I would not object to this Amendment if the hours were brought down by having the permissive extra hours that are enjoyed now added to the statutory hours for shops as provided in Clause 1. Apart from that, I have no objection to the noble Lord's Amendment.
5.47 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, so rarely intervenes in debates in this House

725
that I am sure that anything which he submits to your Lordships is worthy of careful consideration. Speaking entirely on my own responsibility, may I say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that perhaps a 10 o'clock rule would go a little too far. I think, also, that one need not attach very much importance to the competition, shall we say, of the cinemas. But I would not intervene to say something in support of the principle of this Amendment if I were not sure that so far as the shop assistants are concerned they are adequately protected by their wages board and, I hope, in most instances, by their trade unions. But while one does not want to shelter behind the position, one cannot close one's eyes to the fact that there are literally thousands of shopkeepers in this country who do not employ assistants at all. I agree with the Cowers Report that these people cannot be, or ought not to be, excluded from any general legislation.
But what is the position of these people? Many of them have invested whatever small capital they may have in these shops, and they have been able to stay open later. I venture to say that if this restriction is imposed upon them, plus the fact of the heavy additional burden which is falling upon them in connection with the new rates which they have to pay (notwithstanding the measure of abatement which. I understand, may be forthcoming) many of them, if not the majority, may perforce be driven out of business. In summer, as we all know, owing to the working of the Summer Time regulations, in many cases people go out late in the evening and like to purchase ice-cream and so on. As your Lordships will realise, the weather last year made the summer one of the worst in recent memory for the sale of ice-cream. The ice-cream industry has to measure up one year with another. Last year was very bad and they are hoping that we may be blessed this year with a good summer from their point of view. Thousands of shopkeepers depend on the sale of ice-cream during the times proscribed in the clause. If it is passed, it will be one of the most severe blows yet levelled at the ice-cream industry in this country. My noble friend is right in saying that perhaps the Amendment goes a little too far, but in view of the plea
726
that has been put up, I would suggest that even if the Government cannot accept this Amendment, they might give the matter second thoughts, to see whether there cannot be some alleviation of the strict conditions laid down.
LORD LUKE: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax in his Amendment. I feel that no one speaks with greater authority than he on the confectionery trade and I have been considerably impressed by what he said. I was also glad to hear Lord Lucas of Chilworth's plea for a reasonable deal for the consumer, and I think there is a great deal in what he said. I was particularly impressed by what my noble friend said about the hours of closing. Seventeen hours in a week are a considerable number to be curtailed off your business, especially when they are during the peak hours of sales. The clause as it stands does not seem to be in the public interest or in the interest of shopkeepers, but merely in the interest of curtailment, and that dot's not seem to me to be right. Obviously, there will be hardship among retailers, especially among small family shops, and I think we ought to pay particular attention to that. With regard to cafés and restaurants in cinemas, it seems to me that if there is to be an exemption it should be allowed all round, and one section ought not to be curtailed without the others. I think it is unfair that certain units should be penalised. I wanted to say these few words in support of my noble friend because I think there is a great deal in what he said and in his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSTIAM: I shall not detain the Committee very long. I hope that what I say may satisfy noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Amendment, and, if I may address my remarks not only to this Amendment but to that to another part of the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think I shall probably facilitate the discussion of the Committee. The Gowers Committee decided against differentiating in favour of the tobacco and confectionery trade because they were anxious to avoid the complications which are imposed if we start differentiating and because of the practice of selling confectionery and tobacco in common with other goods. If it is proposed to differentiate, that difficulty has

727
to be accepted and dealt with in one form or another. My right honourable friend and I feel that there is a strong case to be made for the confectionery and tobacco trade. I do not share the view of the noble Lord. Lord Grantchester, in his reply to the discussion on the last Amendment, that if we differentiate in favour of confectionery, then we have to differentiate in favour of, for instance, bread. The reason was adumbrated, I thought persuasively, by my noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax in his excellent speech. May I, in parenthesis, thank him for his kind remarks about myself?
Though I had no idea of this before I began reading my "homework" in connection with this Bill, the confectionery trade is what is called an "impulse" trade. This is a phrase new to me. I gather that the same is true up to a point of tobacco. I can afford to look at this matter with a certain degree of detachment because I do not smoke and my wife will not allow me to eat too many sweets. But I realise that a great many people not blessed with so much flesh as I have, when they see a confectioner's shop, get an impulse which they simply cannot resist. When they pass a bread shop, fortunately, in this country where no-one is overcome by famine, they do not get an impulse to go and buy a loaf of bread, say, at 10 o'clock at night. The housewife is content to shop at normal hours to provide her family with its needs, but in confectionery much of the trade depends on impulse, which, as my noble friend said, is not necessarily repeated next morning at breakfast time. The result is—I am approaching this problem pragmatically rather than philosophically—that a case can be made for treating confectionery as different from bread, and my right honourable friend has authorised me to say that he intends, if he can, to find a way of giving effect to noble Lords' desires in this matter. The Parliamentary draftsmen, who in this respect are my masters as well as the Government's servants, tell me that neither of the Amendments will do because they do not fit into the structure of the Bill. I trust that the noble Lords will be satisfied to accept a rather indefinite but none the less sincere promise on the part of the Government
728
that it is their intention to make an exception of the tobacco and confectionery trades, and will withdraw their two Amendments.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount and accept his offer straight away. I am glad that he has done this because, if I may say so in support of my noble friend Lord Burden, this is relevant to something said by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who poured scorn upon my remark that these long hours of opening were bound to be to the financial ruin of small shopkeepers. When we had a universal 10 o'clock opening, the demise of retail businesses was 20 per cent. per annum—that was the rate of bankruptcy. The bad debts so accumulated had to be borne by the consumer. I agree with my noble friend Lord Burden that the small shopkeeper who relies upon this type of business is going to be badly hit, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his promise. When it comes to my part in this, I will not move my Amendment and will rely on his promise.
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: I gladly withdraw my Amendment and thank the noble Viscount and the Government for their promise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Late days
2.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to make such orders under this section specifying pairs of weekdays as will enable effect to be given throughout their area to the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the foregoing section.
(2) An order under this section may be so framed as to extend to the whole of the area of the authority by whom it is made or to part only of that area and as to have effect as respects the generality of shops within the area to which it extends (either without exception or subject to an exception for shops where a particular trade or business is carried on) or as respects shops within that area where a particular trade or business is carried on, and different pairs of days may be specified by order under this section—

(a) for the purposes of different trades or businesses;

(b) as respects different parts of the area of the authority;

(c) as respects different weeks of the year;

and both or either of the days of a pair applicable to a shop by virtue of such an order may he the same as both or, as the case may be, either of the days of a pair applicable to that shop by virtue of an order under the next following section
(3) Of a pair of days specified by an order under this section, one shall be designated by the order as the principal day.
(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the late day as respects a shop shall be that one of the pair of days for the time being applicable to the shop by virtue of an order under this section which is designated by the order as the principal day, unless the occupier of the shop elects as the late day the other day of that pair, in which case the late day shall be that other day.
(8) An election under subsection (4) of this section, an election under subsection (6) thereof and a variation under subsection (7) thereof of an election under the said subsection (6) shall be of no effect unless signified by a notice in the prescribed form displayed in the prescribed manner in the shop to which it relates, and when such an election or variation is so signified—

(a) it shall, until revoked or, in the case of a variation, until the election to which it relates is again varied, have effect with respect to all weeks after that in which it is first so signified; and

(b) so long as it is effective, the notice evidencing it must continue to be displayed as aforesaid while the shop is open.

LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (4), after "occupier of the shop" to insert, "shall have notified the local authority in writing that he". The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, may I say a word or two about all the Amendments standing in my name? Most of them, but not all of them, are designed to improve the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act. In putting down these Amendments I have borne in mind certain things which have been told me by inspectors under the Act. They are the poor devils who have to try to see that it is enforced—and I say "poor devils" because they have found considerable difficulty under the present Act.
What they say is that the law must be easily understandable to the shopkeepers, to the shopping public and to them, the inspectors, because a great number of the prosecutions brought arise from the fact that nobody understands the law. Secondly, they say that where there is good administration, it is to the benefit of both the public and the shopkeeper; and they also tell me that it is impossible to enforce a Shops Act, or a regulation under the Act, which is resisted and disliked, either by shopkeepers as a whole—not necessarily individual shopkeepers—or by the public as a whole. So in these Amendments that I have put down I have tried to see that they are simple,
730
to the benefit of good administration and unlikely to upset either the public or the shopkeeper.
The first Amendment is one of pure administration. It deals with the election by the occupier of the shop of his late day—"the other day of the pair" are, it think, the words used by the Act. There are two late days, and if he does not take one, he has to elect the other. All the Amendments say that when he so elects he shall do so in writing. The object of that is that, unless it is done in writing, it is almost impossible for the local authorities to prepare lists; and if there are no lists, it is almost equally impossible for those concerned to know whether a shop should or should not be open on a particular evening. I am advised that the large proportion of shopkeepers will have no objection to this Amendment, and that the only people who are likely to object are the very few who might wish to manipulate the law to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of their competitors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("shop") insert the said words.—(Lord Delivery.)
LORD BURDEN: Broadly speaking, I think this. Amendment is in line with the subsequent one. I think your Lordships will agree that if local authorities are to carry out the terms of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, they should not be faced with all sorts of complexities and difficulties which will arise if a man can, of his own volition and without any notification to anybody, jump from one early closing day to another. That, as I read it, it is possible for him to do under the terms of the clause as now drafted. I am sure it is the intention of the Government that the terms of the Act should be complied with, and, while we all know that the majority of shopkeepers are decent, law-abiding people who will honour its terms, there is another class, small, I agree, but difficult for the local authorities to deal with, who will take advantage of any possible loophole, not only breaking the law but acting to the disadvantage of their competitors who are loyally abiding by the law. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Viscount will see his way to accept this Amendment, or to suggest phraseology which will meet the position.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is one of a number of Amendments the object of which, as my noble friend Lord Derwent has said, is to facilitate the enforcement of the Bill by making the shopkeeper who exercises one of the elections given him under this procedure notify the local authorities, instead of simply putting up a notice in his shop. I think there is a good deal to be said for these Amendments, and I do not deny that probably they would facilitate enforcement, at any rate, to a certain extent. The noble Lord who has just spoken is not quite right in thinking that the shopkeeper who puts up a notice can altogether escape from his obligations by taking it down, as he will see from the rather complicated phraseology of subsection (5).
My right honourable friend is disposed at the moment to resist this Amendment, although he recognises that it is a reasonable one and well worthy of consideration. The object of the framers of this Bill has been to reduce to the minimum the form-filling and red tape, and it is thought that the existing provisions of the Bill achieve that object. I think that is a very nice thing, whether one accepts that argument or the opposite one. The Committee, on the whole, have been pressing me to err on the side of freedom, rather than regulation, and so, to some extent, I am fortified in the attitude my right honourable friend has taken. I do not know whether noble Lords who have spoken to this Amendment will be satisfied if I say that my right honourable friend will take into account what they have said. He may want to take the opinion of another place, as well, because obviously it is a matter which will be discussed there. I would ask my noble friend Lord Derwent to withdraw the Amendment, but I do not close the door completely to the possibility that my right honourable friend might change his mind in the light of what noble Lords have said and what others may say.
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I intend to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I would go so far as to say that, without local authority lists, this clause will be unenforceable; and unless election is in writing, local authorities will be unable to prepare a list. I should
732
like that to be on the record. But, subject to the undertaking given by my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (8), after "unless" to insert "notified to the local authority in the prescribed form and." The noble Lord said: I will formally move this Amendment. In doing so, I would say that I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that freedom is a good thing, generally speaking. But the object of these Amendments is that freedom should not degenerate into licence, and from that point of view we should like this matter to be looked at. I formally move the Amendment and no doubt the same procedure as was followed with the other Amendment can be followed here. I move it in order to have it on the record. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, after ("unless") insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MILVERTON: As this Amendment is in my name, also, I should like to say that I fully support what my noble friend Lord Derwent said about the last Amendment. I do not believe that these regulations are properly enforceable without that notification. I, too, would press that point. I know that it is a sound (Government principle that one should endeavour to reduce these restrictions and requirements as much as possible, but one of the main objects of this Bill is to take shops legislation out of the disrepute into which it has fallen because it has been in many respects unenforceable; and it was solely with the idea of trying to help in making this Bill and its provisions enforceable, and of letting shops legislation gain the reputation that such laws should have, that this Amendment was drafted. It was entirely with a desire to help, and I hope the noble Viscount will bring that to his right honourable friend's attention.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am grateful for what has been said. I am very conscious of these arguments—indeed, I can assure noble Lords who have spoken that from the start my right honourable friend and I recognised the purpose behind these Amendments, and recognised what could be said, and what has been

733
said so forcibly, about the necessity for an adequate enforcement procedure. I have no authority to go further than I have gone to-day, but from what I have said I am hopeful that noble Lords will realise that what they have said will be conveyed to my right honourable friend.
LORD BURDEN: In the circumstances, and in view of the assurance that it will be looked at again, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:
Late days
"2. The late day referred to in the last foregoing section shall be Saturday unless the local authority by order fix some other day as the late day and any such order may fix the same day for all shops or may fix—

(a) different days for different classes of shops;

(b) different days for different parts of their area; or

(c) different days for different periods of the year;

Provided that where the local authority have under this Act made an order specifying a pair of days under section 3 of this Act for any class of shop, or for any part of their area, or for any period of the year, they shall, as respects that class, part or period, fix some other day as the late day."
The noble Earl said: The Amendments which stand in my name, like those of my noble relative. Lord Derwent, and the two noble Lords who spoke on the last Amendment, are put down with a view to facilitating the enforcement of this Bill, a duty that has been laid upon the local authorities. I have tabled a number of Amendments at the behest of the London County Council, who will be the largest single administrating authority under the Bill when it becomes law. The first of these Amendments in my name relates to Clause 2. It is essentially a conservative Amendment, and I hope for that reason it may appeal to the noble Viscount opposite and some of his friends on the Benches opposite. It is a plea for the status quo. What I am suggesting is that your Lordships should omit this clause, which proposes a new arrangement for the late day—the day on which shops can stay open from 7 to 8 o'clock
734
al night—and go back to the arrangement that exists at the moment under the Shops Act, 1950.
I should like to give your Lordships three arguments in favour of retaining the existing arrangement for the late day. The first of them is this. Clause 2, as it stands, is extremely complicated. What I think it does is to oblige local authorities to offer shopkeepers the choice of two days in the week, on one of which they can slay open late. One will be called the principal day, and if a shopkeeper chooses the principal day he will have no further bother. But if he chooses the other day, then he will have quite a lot of bother and a great deal to think about. What I am suggesting is that we should retain the simple arrangement of having one day fixed by the local authority as the late day for that area.
One of the most important recommendations of the Gowers Committee was that the law should be made more intelligible to the ordinary person—that it should he understood by shopkeepers and the shopkeepers public. What I should like to ask noble Lords to do is to regard themselves for a moment as a gathering of intelligent and conscientious shopkeepers, who wish to understand what their rights and obligations are under the law and to observe them; who want to keep open when they are allowed to keep open, and who do not wish inadvertently to stay open on the wrong night. I will read to your Lordships subsection (5) of this clause, which the noble Viscount opposite referred to as being complicated phraseology. I differ with him slightly in this matter, and would suggest that that was an understatement. Your Lordships will judge for yourselves when I have read the terms of this subsection. It says:
"An election made under the last foregoing subsection "—
that is to say, the choice of the other day, the day that is not the principal day—
"shall be revocable; but where such an election has been made in relation to a shop while a pair of days is applicable thereto by virtue of an order under this section, neither the right of revocation conferred by this subsection nor the right of election conferred by the last foregoing subsection shall, while that pair of days continues to be applicable to the shop, be so exercised in relation to the shop as to take effect with respect to a week earlier than the thirteenth after that with respect to which the

735
exercise, or the last exercise, of the other of those rights took effect in relation to the shop."
That is not all. If the shopkeeper understands this, he still does not know where he stands. He may well inadvertently break the law, and he has another particular right conferred by the proviso which qualifies the last paragraph. The proviso reads:
"Provided that where either of those rights is (otherwise than by virtue of this proviso) so exercised as to take effect with respect to a week, the other of those rights may be exercised so as to take effect with respect to the week next following."
After he has read that, the shopkeeper knows exactly where he stands! I did not understand it when I read it, and I still do not understand it—it is quite unintelligible to me—but I have had the advantage of having it explained to me by a legal expert whose business it is to understand the provisions of this Bill. I am told—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am not right—that what it amounts to simply is this: that if a shopkeeper wishes to change his mind about his late day he cannot do so for more than one week unless he waits for three months. I may be quite wrong, and that may not be the right interpretation, but that is what I understood it to be. Surely, it is a little unfair to expect shopkeepers to get legal advice in order to understand what their rights are. This all arises from the fact that the Government wish them to have a choice between the days on which they may stay open.
My second argument is this. I am told by one of the most important authorities that this clause will be extremely difficult to enforce, and for this reason. There will be a strong temptation to break the law, under the spur of competition. One shopkeeper, seeing his neighbour open on a late night when he is not allowed to be open, may say, "Well, I will take the risk and I will stay open, although in fact I have had the other late night earlier in the week, or shall have it later." There will be a strong temptation to break the law and, therefore, this provision makes the law more difficult for local authorities to enforce.
My third argument is this. The noble and learned Viscount invoked the authority of the Gowers Committee when
736
he was answering the argument of my noble friend and Leader about Clause 1. We all respect the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. What I want to ask the noble Viscount, however, is this: why do the Government want to make an important change in the law which was not recommended by the Gowers Committee? The Committee heard all the evidence, and, surely, if there had been any considerable demand from shopkeepers for the choice of two days in the week instead of their late day, they would have embodied that demand in one of their recommendations. But the Gowers Committee said nothing on this subject. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will say why, in this important respect, the Government wish to depart from the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I of course realise the attractions of an argument which is based on conservatism, and the noble Earl is perfectly correct in saying that this new clause is really "cribbed" out of the Act of 1950, which is the law as it is now. Indeed. I would say that it is not only conservatism; the word "reactionary" leaps to my lips in this connection. If he wants to put the clock back to 1950, I readily concede that there is something to be said for it, and I think he has said it very powerfully; but I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that our attitude towards this particular Amendment ought to be a little harder than the one which I gave last time. My right honourable friend is disposed to reject it, although again this is not a matter which I would ever claim was finally closed or decided.
I will tell the noble Earl why it is that the Government resist it, and why, on the whole, they are disposed to ask your Lordships to reject it. It is this, In the first place, as regards the noble Earl's Amendment, the existing law makes Saturday the late day unless the local authority fixes another. This Amendment would abolish one of the important modernising and liberalising features of the Bill. All our information goes to show that the most convenient day is no longer Saturday, and yet Saturday is written into the law. For example,

737
in the West End I gather it has been found to be Thursday, and probably it is different in different areas. That is the first criticism I make of it. It would be Saturday under the Amendment unless the local authority changed it by order.
Secondly, it would give no choice of late day to the shopkeeper. The Bill we have put before your Lordships gives him an option to choose between a pair of late days. That is not an accident. All this is really my answer to the last of the noble Earl's questions. It represents the rationale of the Bill and, to that extent, it differs from the Dowers Committee recommendations. The Government think that the feeling behind this Amendment is that, if you are going to bring down the evening closing hour to seven, which is the very point which has caused so much controversy this afternoon—and noble Lords opposite must admit that I was pressed hard from all sides of the House to give way, but I stood my ground on that, with their help—if you are going to impose that added restriction on hours, this late day provision ought to be a little more flexible than before because there is likely to be a greater wish to make use of it. This Amendment, which has the attraction of reverting to the status quo—and that is an attraction which can never be wholly lost on Conservatives—is not one which the Government feel at all disposed to accept at the present time.
I would concede that under the Amendment the law would be slightly more easily enforced. I think that that is quite a legitimate point to make. The question is whether, for the sake of a little greater ease in enforcement, we are going to abandon what we regard as an important liberalising measure. My judgment would be that it is not worth while doing that. I am not terribly afraid of the example of the possible abuse of the clause given by the noble Earl. I am afraid that my experience, both of the Bar and in the country, has led me to believe that neighbours are not such good neighbours as the noble Earl's neighbours obviously are. If I kept my shop open twice illegally during the week when my neighbour was observing the law, I think I know somebody who would inform the police, the enforcement inspector, or whoever it was; therefore I do not take the view that it
738
would be quite so unenforceable as the noble Earl thinks.
Lastly, there is the question of phraseology. I agree that it looks very complicated—indeed, I said so, as he rightly pointed out, and I respectfully congratulate the noble Earl upon the use to which he put my unguarded admission. But I think he can overstate the complexity of it. By imposing a greater restriction on the shopkeeper, you can, of course, make the law mach more easy to be understood; but it is doubtful, to my mind, whether the shopkeeper will not prefer his freedom with a little difficulty in understanding what the law means, to restriction with complete certainty that he cannot do what he wants to do. That is, at any rate, my general approach to the problem. Moreover, I would say, again with respect to the noble Earl and recognising the force of much that he said, that he rather underestimates the ability of shopkeepers to understand complicated legislation. With due respect to his Party, shopkeepers are trained by such a long series of unintelligible regulations that they know pretty well what is what.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I accept, of course, what the noble Viscount says about the important reasons for offering this choice of days for the shopkeeper in place of the single day, as it used to be, but my complaint is about subsection (5). I am sure that he will agree with me when I say that I found it impossible to understand before he admitted that he himself regarded it as being a piece of complex phraseology. I should like to ask the noble Viscount this. If he feels that the clause is desirable as it now stands, could he not—for, after all, he is himself a very distinguished lawyer and he has as clear a mind as anyone in his profession—go through it rather carefully, with or without his Parliamentary draftsman, and see whether this subsection could not be made a little simpler and clearer?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will say at once that this is a challenge which a professional man finds it difficult to resist. I do not offer any prospect of success. All that has been said will be considered before the Bill reaches another stage. I promise the noble Earl that if I see a way of making the draftsmanship plainer without affecting the sense of the Bill, I

739
certainly will not hesitate to take it. It sometimes happens that quite a simple form of words will do, but I am advised that this legislation, oddly enough, although one starts with the idea that it can be made very simple, is one of the most delicately balanced pieces of Parliamentary draftsmanship that the Parliamentary draftsman has handled for many a long year.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his undertaking to look at the drafting, because some of us have found this clause a little difficult. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power of local authority in sea-fishing centres and holiday resorts to permit later evening closing and dispense with observance of early closing days
4.—(1) A local authority whose area—

(a) includes a harbour used for the purposes of the sea-fishing industry, being a harbour whose use for those purposes is substantially greater during some seasons of the year than during others; or

(b) consists of, or includes, a place frequented (whether at all times or during certain seasons of the year) by tourists or holiday-makers;

may by order give either or both of the following directions, that is to say:—
(i) a direction that, as respects the weekdays in such weeks as may be specified in the order, there shall, in the case of shops situate within the area of the authority or within such part o that area as may be specified in the order or shops so situate where there is carried on retail trade or business of a class so specified, be substituted for subsection (1) of section one of this Act (other than the proviso thereto), a requirement that they shall be closed not later than such time as may be fixed by the order (being neither earlier than seven o'clock in the evening nor later than eight o'clock in the evening);
6.28 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subparagraph (i) of subsection (1), to leave out
"(being neither earlier than seven o'clock in the evening nor later than eight o'clock in the evening)."
The noble Lord said: This clause gives power to local authorities at holiday resorts to permit for twenty-two weeks in
740
the year later evening closing than the Bill otherwise allows, but 8 p.m. is the latest time which may be specified. I have consulted various bodies who have every reason to be familiar with the circumstances to which this clause applies, and it is suggested that, the principle having been accepted of the need for special arrangements in holiday resorts, local authorities should be left to judge the extent of those needs and to make orders accordingly. There are other provisions in the Bill to ensure that shop assistants are not employed for excessive hours.
We all, I presume, know that there is a considerable traffic of "day trippers" to resorts. Many of them do not leave until ten o'clock at night, and a large amount of trade is done right up to the moment of their departure. It seems unreasonable to deny this trade to the shops, many of whom are, to a large extent, dependent upon it. It seems also unreasonable to deny their wares to the visitors. Other things apart, it would be almost impossible, I am informed, to enforce the 8 p.m. closing time. It is equally worth noting that there does not appear to be any reference in the Gowers Report upholding this proposal to increase control over the discretion of the local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, leave out the said words.—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD DERWENT: In supporting my noble friend, may I say that this is a most important Amendment. As the law stands at present, this matter is left to the local authority. It may well be—I have not studied all the resorts—that one resort, possibly Eastbourne, likes to close at 7 o'clock in the summer and finds that adequate. Perhaps Scarborough likes to close at 9 o'clock and finds that adequate; it is rather a place where families go. But we know perfectly well that Blackpool for a short period closes at midnight. Who are the men in Whitehall who think that they know what is the proper time for a seaside resort to close? I speak particularly on behalf of the Northern resorts, because they have a shorter season.
There are three classes of people who have to make their living in a space of three or four months, virtually for the

741
whole twelve months. They are the shopkeepers; those who provide the shops with goods such as local market gardeners and so on; and, what is often forgotten, the shop assistants. Many of them are technically unemployed in the winter—for seven or eight months of the year. In many cases that is how they like it. Except for occasional jobs, they make enough in four months to be all right for the rest of the year. I have asked about that in my own local town of Scarborough and they all tell me the same thing. The girls and the married women, who form the bulk of shop assistants in a seaside resort, make their money in those four months. Those who are in the minority, the men, are still employed in the winter.
Take Blackpool, which, in a way, is the extreme case. People go to Blackpool for the lights and everything that lights mean—and it means shops being open and people being able to pop into a shop to buy something. There are hundreds of thousands of people who go to Blackpool every year, but who do not spend a night there. In my own local village, all the male population, from, I think, sixteen to ninety-six (being mostly farm workers they do not take proper holidays, particularly 1n the summer) go off once a year early one morning to Blackpool, and they "beat it up," or whatever is the equivalent phrase, until midnight, while the shops are open till midnight The illuminations are on and everything is going on. At midnight these things shut down, and they get into their coach and they come back to the North Riding, arriving in the early morning of the next day, which is usually a holiday for other reasons.
There are hundreds of thousands of people who make trips like that, not only to Blackpool but to every kind of resort of that kind. It is their one holiday of the year. They come out of the mills they come out of the factories, and they go on this holiday. Are you going to say that, if they are late back from the beach in June or July, or whatever month it may be, and therefore do not finish their supper until nine o'clock, they shall find, to their horror, that the whole place is dark? That is what you are asking, and it is really absurd. The present system has worked all right up to now without any complaint. So far as one can find out—and I have tried to find
742
out from the shop assistants—there have been no complaints. Nor have there been complaints from the shopkeepers. The proper people in places like this to know what time they need to shut the shops are the local authorities. That is the law now. Why suddenly in these special cases (as the Government admit they are), are we asking for the law to be changed?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I add my plea to those made by other noble Lords. I should have thought that for this short period this was a matter which could be left quite safely with the local authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said, these folk have a very short time in which to make a living. They have to pay their rates all through the year, as well as their rents and everything else. Do the Government not think they could make an exception in this particular case, so that the local authorities can extend the hour to what they think would meet the circumstances of the case so well outlined by the noble Lord. Lord Derwent?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a matter where my right honourable friend feels that there is a strong case to be made out for the Amendment proposed. Without actually accepting it, I think I can go a long way towards indicating that the Government will take a sympathetic attitude towards it. As my noble friend who proposed the Amendment pointed out, these words are a departure in the direction of greater restriction as distinct from Section 41 of the Shops Act, 1950. They were put in because we had increased the power of the local authorities to extend the hours for what I think is called the statutory season, from four months to five months, and there were some representations by the trade unions concerned that we ought to make some compensating allowance on the other hand by providing for the 8 p.m. closing.
As my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite have suggested, we have received a certain number of representations from some of the resorts concerned that much use was made of the greater freedom allowed under the Act of 1950, and my right honourable friend is, in fact, quite favourably disposed to the Amendment. He is anxious to take the opinion of another place on the matter as well, for reasons which I think will be acceptable both to my noble friend and to the noble

743
Lord opposite. It is essentially a matter in which local opinion and trade union opinion ought to be tested. I am therefore going to ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment, and at the same time I am telling him that, as at present advised, my right honourable friend is very much disposed, at some stage before the Bill becomes Law, to accept it.
LORD MILVERTON: I thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he has received this Amendment and for his assurances, which naturally we find most gratifying. With the assurance which he has giver, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment may I ask this question. Supposing in another place this Amendment is not passed, we as a House have not been able to give our opinion on it. Is that right?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That would be so. Of course, there are disadvantages in both courses, as I frankly concede. As I understand it—I see the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough opposite—the Amendment has not met with any opposition here; but I think this is very much a question upon which it would be desirable for feeling to be tested in the way I propose in both Houses, especially as I have said that the only reason for the greater restriction was some representation from the trade unions, which might be represented in another place. However, I will convey to my right honourable friend that no voice was raised in opposition to what my noble friend has said.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: So far as I am concerned, for all the reasons that the noble Viscount has stated, I think, if I may say so, that this is a most wise course for him to take, and he satisfies me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Where the occupier of any shop in any place in which a direction under paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section is in force satisfies the local authority that it is the practice to allow all his shop assistants a holiday on full pay of not less than two weeks in every year and keeps affixed in his shop a notice to that effect, the requirement in this Act that in each week a shop assistant shall be allowed a half holiday on a business day shall not apply
744
to the shop during such weeks as may be specified in the direction as aforesaid."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the catering trade which the noble and learned Viscount charged with the Bill said a little earlier, if I heard him rightly, was deserving of special treatment. Under existing law, under Section 40 of the Act of 1950, permission is given to local authorities in holiday resorts to suspend for up to four months in the year the obligation to close shops on a weekly half-day; and, as a corollary to this, the weekly half-day need not be given to shop assistants while the suspension order is in force, provided that they are given two weeks' paid holiday in the year. This Bill preserves the first concession about the half-day on which the shop is allowed to be open, but not the second: it insists on a half-day for the shop assistants. The catering trade feel that this provision will make things difficult for them, with the great labour shortage they experience, and they would like to see the concession reinstated, at least so far as it is possible, for workers in the catering industry. Under the Catering Wages Regulations, staff are entitled to two weeks' paid holiday a year, and their interests are safeguarded by the regulations so far as payment of overtime is concerned. I am sure that this Amendment is in the interests of both overseas visitors and home holiday makers, to enable them to get decent service at the overcrowded restaurants. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Jessel.)
LORD DERWENT: I beg to support my noble friend Lord Jessel. Without going into the same detail, I may say that one of the great difficulties about this Bill is that it is, in effect, dealing with more than one industry; and what is suitable for a shop on a shop assistant is not necessarily suitable, in certain directions, for a catering establishment. The catering establishment has difficulties which do not apply to the shop. In addition, the catering establishment is controlled by the Catering Wages Act. I would therefore ask Her Majesty's Government, where they can give slight concessions in regard to catering establishments to which the Shops Regulations do not really apply, to do so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I understand the reasons which have led my noble friend to move this Amendment, but I ant afraid that this is one which I. am going to ask the Committee not to accept. Its object is to restore the position under the Act of 1950 whereby, if a local authority in a holiday resort have made an order abolishing the early closing day requirement during the season, the employer need not give his assistants weekly half-holidays, provided lie has satisfied the local authority that it is his practice to give a paid annual holiday of two weeks. At first sight that is a very reasonable proposition, and it was in the Act of 1950; but the Gowers Committee thought that, as time had gone on, and conditions improved, the compensation of two weeks' annual holiday, if it ever had any value—and here I am quoting:
"has now become quite illusory when this is so widely given as a normal term of employment."
I am hound to say that I agree with that judgment of the Committee, and I believe that legislation may be brought into contempt if it pretends to offer to assistants compensation which is, in truth and in fact, no real compensation at all because everybody gets it anyhow.
It may be said, of course, that employers might not be able to take advantage of being able to stay open on early closing day if they had to give their assistants a weekly half holiday. That again is an argument which is plausible but it is not one which Her Majesty's Government accept. There may be many other institutions, such as restaurants and garages, which are exempt from the early closing day requirement, but which, none the less, have to see that their assistants are given a weekly half-holiday; and I am bound to say that we have taken the view of the trade union on this matter. It is true that the trade union concerned is not very widely representative of the people employed, but Her Majesty's Government take the view that it does represent the views of the assistants so far as those views can be ascertained, and for the reasons I have given I must resist the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for that answer. If the attitude which the noble
746
and learned Viscount has taken is maintained throughout the passage of the Bill, I think he will be absolutely right, and therefore I should not wish to trouble the Committee with any lengthy speech. This kind of thing stems from the Act of 1912. I think it was because of that Act that the Gowers Committee, in 1946, felt, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, that we ought to keep strictly to the progress that has been going on and which has been productive of demands of the kind which trade unions make, even in ordinary statutory wages councils and the like. I am quite sure the Committee had that in mind in making this recommendation. I will not therefore trouble your Lordships with a long speech on the matter—though I am quite capable of doing so.
LORD JESSEL: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his answer. In view of what he has said I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Modification. at Christmastide, of requirements with respect to early closing days]:
LORD COLERAINE LORD COLERAINE moved to add to the clause:
"(3) Where a shop is closed all day on Good Friday it shall not be necessary for a day to be observed as respects the shop as an early closing day in the week in which Good Friday falls."
The noble Lord said: I believe the argument for this Amendment to be sound—it is certainly simple. Clause 7 of the Bill represents an innovation in shops legislation inasmuch as it recognises that the Christmas holiday period is a special period bah from the business point of view and from the point of view of the customer. So it lays down that where the shop is closed on two of the holidays, two early closing days may be dispensed with. Where it is closed on one of the holidays, one early closing day may be dispensed with. In both cases care is taken of the employee and the shopkeeper by the provisions of Clause 37.
My Amendment proposes simply that the same procedure should be adopted in respect not of the Easter holiday as a whole bat of Good Friday. When I saw

747
the clause for the first time, I could not understand why Easter had been left out of it. Perhaps it was not realised that, generally speaking, from the point of view of retail business, no less for the trader than for the customer, Easter and the days immediately before it are next only to Christmas for trade. It would therefore seem reasonable that Good Friday, at any rate, should be put in the same position as a holiday as Christmas Day or Boxing Day. If my noble friend cares to accept this Amendment, as I hope he may do, I propose on Clause 37 to move a further Amendment to safeguard the position of the employee, just as it is at present safeguarded under the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Coleraine.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am afraid that this may be the last Amendment which we shall be able to reach tonight, so I am happy to say that this is one Amendment that I can accept in its entirety, without any further drafting whatever, though I hope the Committee will concede that we have given way on a number of others in principle.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes before seven o'clock.