HC Deb 31 March 1911 vol 23 cc1685-761

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)

I have the honour to move the Second Reading of this Bill, dealing with problems of social reform, of which none probably before us are more complex, and few more urgent. No Bill with which I am acquainted in recent years has gone-through more vicissitudes in its passage to the Second Reading in this House, and in no Bill has more effort been made to reconcile the enormous number of conflicting interests involved. The Bill was an inheritance from our predecessors, and was first under construction nearly three years ago. It was published in the last Parliament but one by Lord Gladstone more than one and a-half years ago; it was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in a modified form in the last Parliament; it was again altered in the autumn of the last Parliament, and it appears to-day altered again this month, and, speaking for my right hon. Friend and myself, we should be the last to assert that even at the present it has assumed any final form. During that time Lord Gladstone, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Postmaster-General, and myself, have received more than one hundred deputations representing various interests involved, and have replied to more than one thousand written representations. We present the Bill now as representing in our opinion the greatest common measure of agreement which we were able to effect in the matter, and that I believe in its main provisions commands a very considerable support from the persons whose interests are mainly affected, that is, the shop assistants and the shopkeepers engaged in carrying on the retail trade of the country.

I think the House will agree with me that those difficulties and variations are not due to any lack of certainty or determination on the part of the promoters of the Bill; they are inherent to the consideration of the enormously intricate interests involved in the Bill we have to deal with an evil which is equally felt in the huge emporium of the establishment of the West End of London, and in the tiny general shop in an East End of London slum. We have to deal in the same manner with the decent quiet provincial town, and a retail trade on the one hand, where all shops are closed at nightfall, and the whole population is in bed at ten o'clock, and with the London suburb on the other hand, which is asleep all day, in which the population only comes to life about eight o'clock in the evening, and where the whole system of shopping is carried on after an hour when the provincial town has ceased to shop altogether. Again, we are attempting to deal with Sunday trading —which is one of the most thorny questions—and with the standard of Sunday trading established and maintained in such regions as those of Scotland and Wales, and where none are more anxious than the retail traders themselves to break in upon that standard; and, on the other hand, with a system which has been allowed to grow up with certain vested interests behind it in certain districts, especially in the Metropolis, where there is very little difference in some respects between Sunday trading and that of other days of the Week. It is in consequence of these enormous variations that my right hon. Friend has felt from the first the impossibility of clamping down by rigorous regulations from Whitehall, which should be carried out irrespective of all those interests; it is for these reasons he has so strictly considered the various interests, and for these reasons the main principle of the Bill so far as it affects the retail traders is a further development of that laid down in the Act of 1904 to help the retail traders to help themselves. On the other hand, I think no one who is really acquainted with the subject on either side of the House will deny the urgency of this problem. In the number of persons affected, in the influence on the health and happiness of a huge class of deserving people, this Bill is probably unique in recent legislation which deals with social reform. In the general necessity for such legislation as this in connection with the class affected this Bill occupies a peculiar position. In almost every other of the great industrial classes of the community their interests are protected partly by legislation, and partly through the action of persons outside Parliament through united and organised efforts which have resulted in a very considerable mitigation of their conditions and hours of labour. The one exception is the class engaged in the retail trade, and it is exceedingly doubtful whether in regard to this class there has been not only no mitigation, but even a retrogression in regard to the interests of the retail trade owing to restricted action, and even more on account of violent competition. Far from there being any mitigation in the conditions and the hours of shop assistants, the hours of shop assistants and the pressure upon shopkeepers is getting greater from year to year. So great is that pressure that there are large numbers of men and women prepared to work—whether working for themselves or compelled to work for other people—almost every hour which can be conceivably cut out of the day in order to obtain a precarious livelihood. When you contrast the position of the girl in the factory, whose hours are strictly limited by law with her sister who goes into the shop, you find the hours of the latter are not limited, but perhaps continually increasing; you can then realise that every argument which can be brought, and has been brought in the past to secure a limitation of hours in factories, can be advanced with greater force—and, so far as I know, with no legitimate answer—in favour of the limitation of the hours of the retail trade.

So far from this being a new discovery Parliament from time to time, during the last forty years, has again and again ordered an investigation into the subject, and that investigation has always produced a similar result. Some hon. Members, even at this moment, think it is desirable to have further investigation together with the taking of evidence and the calling of witnesses, but I very respectfully ask them what other facts they expect to obtain beyond those which are already at their disposal. There was a Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed in 18S6, another Select Committee in 1892, another in 1895, a Committee of the House of Lords in 1901. and all of them, as well as the witnesses we have had at the Home Office, have found exactly the same state of things as was found by their predecessors. I will only make one quotation from the report of the House of Lords Committee, which is a remarkably interesting and instructive document issued eight years ago, which I think every one acquainted with the subject will realise word for word stands as true to-day as when it was written. The Committee declare:— The subject is one of urgent importance; that the existing evils show no general or sufficient sign of amendment, and that the present hours are grievously injurious to health, especially in the case of women. I will quote their own words: In many places the hours during which shops are open range as high as eighty to ninety per week, in addition to which some time is occupied in clearing up putting away the goods, and packing up the articles purchased; eighty-four hours per week of six days amount to 14 hours a day, and it is almost self-evident that such long hours, especially when the shops are crowded, ill-ventilated and lighted by gas must (as pointed out by the House of Commons Committee of 1886) be injurious, and often ruinous to health, especially in the case of women. I believe a Committee now would merely have to repeat the words of the Committee of the House of Lords, and say, as pointed out by the Committee of 1901, "the con- ditions are the same or even worse than they were then." The only attempt which has been made by the Government to mitigates this often distressing condition of affairs is the attempt which was made as the result of the Report of the House of Lords Committee by the Government of the day in 1904. That is the Shops Act, which is at present in operation, and that is the Shops Act which we seek to amend. If hon. Members will study the Report of that Committee, they will see there was considerable doubt in the minds of those who served upon it as to which of the two courses was the best method to adopt. One course, which was strongly advocated by some Members and many witnesses, would have been the limitation of the hours of labour of shop assistants, such as the limitation of the hours of labour which by law is imposed upon women and children, and which in practice is in consequence imposed upon men in the factories of the country. The effect of the limitation of the hours of women must be the limitation of the hours of men. The other course suggested was to attempt to regulate the demands of the public by permitting the local authority, on the request of the shopkeeper, to impose compulsory orders on various classes of shops. The Committee finally decided to make the experiment in the second direction, but they never closed their minds to the first direction, and I am not quite sure whether in the official report of the Committee, but certainly in the verdict of many of its members it was stated that, if this second direction, in progress, proved inadequate to the demand, then it was evident the first would have to be adopted. Investigations now, after some six or seven years of the operation of that Act, show it has altogether failed to carry out the desires of its promoters. A certain number of closing orders have been established and have produced great benefit in those cities where they are in operation; but the great mass of the retail traders of this country, whether in large or small shops, shops employing assistants or shops without assistants, remain to-day altogether unregulated by the operation of the Act. As a result of inquiry in the Home Office and among the departments concerned, I find that many reasons are given for the failure of the Shops Act of 1904, and they may be briefly summarised in these conslusions. There is the opposition of the small shops to come into closing orders with the larger shops, and that opposition is largely intensified by the fact that a good many of the small shops distinctly live on sweeping up, as it were, the remainder of the trade of which the large shops are not possessed. They feed on the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table. Their only possibility of existence is that they may provide some opportunity for the sale of commodities when the larger and more attractive shops are closed. More important than that has proved the difficulty of united action among the shopkeepers themselves. That has very forcibly been brought homo to us by almost every deputation we have received. No man particularly likes to take the initiative; traders are naturally jealous of each other, there are very few organisations which can undertake the work, and the preliminary operations necessary in order to make out a prima facie case are not carried out.

The third case advanced is sometimes the apathy and sometimes the hostility of the local authorities, and some very remarkable instances have been given in which, not only a two-thirds majority, but almost a unanimous majority in certain towns, have declared their desire for putting into operation an Early Closing Order, and for some reason or other the local authority has refused. Therefore, I think hon. Members of this House will agree with me if there is any method by which we can make less operative these difficulties without incurring enormous expense and without committing injury to the responsibility of the local authorities, which must be primarily responsible, we are right in introducing, as we have done in this Bill, such matters as we propose.

We propose, in dealing with this evil, a simultaneous advance along all the possible lines. We take up the suggestion which was made before the Committee of 1901, and propose a limitation upon and a regulation of the hours of shop assistants. We propose to provide assistance in the promotion of general closing orders either for half-day holidays or for limiting evening hours in an extension of the provisions of the Act of 1904. We propose—and we recognise the difficulties of the proposal—to deal with the most controversial and thorny question of Sunday trading. First, as to Part I. of the Bill, which deals with the Regulation of shop assistants, two grievances, and I think they are real grievances, have been very strongly pressed upon us in this matter. One is the enormous number of hours worked by men and by girls in a certain number of shops of the country, and the other is the lack of the regulation of those hours, and especially of meal times. Often the time for the principal meal for most people is so limited and so irregular that very considerable injury to health results, as the House of Lords Committee reported. We propose a sixty-hours limit, exclusive of meal time. We are not prepared to agree to a lesser regulation than one for sixty hours. Strong representations which have been made to us that it would be desirable the sixty hours limit should be inclusive of meal times, but the sixty hours limit is, in effect, the hours of the Factory Acts, under which the vast majority of women workers are working at the present time, and under which, as I said, the men work in consequence, and, although we think the hours worked in shops, when they amount to seventy-five, eighty, and ninety hours, are beyond any possible reasonable number which we ought to tolerate, we are not prepared to say that the work of shop assistants is so much or more exacting than the work of the factory worker that he or she ought to be brought to a lower level of the minimum number of hours worked than the factory worker. We propose also, in the schedule of the Bill, such a regulation of the hours of meal times that every shop assistant will have a reasonable time to have dinner or to have tea, similar to the system in the factories of this country. We propose a certain amount of overtime, and we propose an extension of the overtime to be permitted where a shop assistant is given a week or a fortnight's holiday with full pay. We think those employers who have generously undertaken that provision should have some kind of preferential treatment over those employers who have not been able to see their way to do so.

The second point is the enlargement of the voluntary closing provision, and I would especially draw the attention of the House to Clauses 8 and 11. We re-enact the provisions of 1904, but we have endeavoured to provide for the particular difficulties which are now felt by those who desire to see the carrying of them out, the difficulty of providing united action arising from the energies of the shopkeeper themselves. We have endeavoured to meet it by giving an initiative and a responsibility to the central department of the State. My right hon. Friend proposes that the Home Secretary, where any representations are made, or on his own initiative, may send down competent persons, whose duty it will be to get the various interests together, to concentrate the desire which is felt in almost every town in this country for shorter hours for shops among the shop-keepers themselves, and to elaborate a draft order which will reconcile those interests, and which may be submitted to the local authority for consideration. This provision has been almost unanimously welcomed by those who have represented the interests of the various classes of retail trade to us, and I believe, if that provision is properly worked, there is no reason why hundreds of orders may not be put into force with the full acquiescence of all retail traders whose interests will be affected. Although we have not seen our way to take away altogether the responsibilities of the local authority, we think, by such a method and by representations from the Home Office, that where the local authorities are apathetic or backward they may be spurred into action. We believe that by the double pressure, the pressure thus created for early closing, which the House will recognise is almost unanimous among the retail trades of this country, and the pressure created by the limitation of the hours of the shop assistants to sixty hours a week, a very great change can be made, and a very large limitation of the hours of work, and consequently a very great extension of freedom among the retail traders of both classes in the community effected. We get over a difficulty which has been very strongly pressed upon us in connection with mixed shops by making arrangements by which a poll shall only be conducted by those whose interests are mainly affected in connection with the sorting out of the various kinds of shops which may have different desires for different hours of closing. The third main division of the Bill is the division which deals with the question of Sunday closing. Of all the questions which have been pressed upon us by deputations representing every class of traders in the country, no question has revealed such unanimity as the desire of the traders for the prevention of the increase of Sunday trading in this country. Sunday provides the shop assistant with almost the only opportunity for leisure in fresh air.

I believe if any investigation were made into the results of the efforts of the National Sunday League to obtain more fresh air and some acquaintanceship with life on Sundays for these various classes of the community which work full hours on week days, it would show that the great bulk of those who take advantage of these opportunities are to be found among the shop assistants. The retail traders of this country have again and again impressed on us the fact that, in the opinion of the great bulk of the trades they represent, there is no kind of necessity for keeping open seven days a week. Most of the shops are at the present time closed on one day a week, but they recognise that pressure is put on them often by one or two shops which they are unable to resist, and they ask us to give them the same rights as are possessed at present by almost every other industrial class. Of course, directly you open a question which is not a new question, but a question affecting interests which have been allowed to grow up contrary to the law, you are met with great difficulties. My right hon. Friend has tried to meet this difficulty in the Clauses which deal with Sunday closing, and in the Schedules of the Bill which are affected by these Clauses. It is evident to every man in the House that some measure of selling certain commodities on Sundays must still be permitted. Certainly, so long as public-houses in England are open on Sundays so long will it be absolutely necessary that alternative refreshment houses should also be allowed to open.

My right hon. Friend had also to consider the representations made to him by those whoso interests have been allowed to grow up under a system of carelessness. In a matter that concerns mostly small people with small capital it would be quite impossible suddenly and brutally to lay down a law which would reduce them to ruin. He had also to consider the very different practice in the matter which prevails in various parts of the country. Briefly I think I am right in my interpretation when I say that our policy has been, as far as possible, without injury to those whose interests are at the moment affected, to see that no further extension of Sunday trading shall continue except in those trades where Sunday trading is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the community. After all, in trades where the pressure is felt, and where it is not so necessary—among grocers, butchers, and sellers of hardware and of non-perishable goods, where there is really no reason why people should do their shopping on Sunday—an absolute prohibition is laid down, with the full and even the enthusiastic desire of those who have a right to speak for those trades.

There are minor difficulties in connection with the matter, and especially in connection with street trading which has grown up in London on Sunday, and in connection with the Jews. These points, I think hon. Members will agree with me, are more appropriate for discussion on the Committee Stage than on any general discussion of the Bill at present, but subject to such minor exceptions and limitations, we propose to go forward on the plan laid down in the Bill, and to ensure for the shopkeeper and his assistant, as we have already assured for the police in England, one day's rest in seven.

We have tried to show some of the peculiar difficulties associated with this question. On the other hand, I think we may say we are free from some of the general difficulties which sometimes accompany industrial legislation. There can be no question that the limitation of these hours will not affect the output; the amount of retail trade will continue the same after the Bill has passed. Nor is there any fundamental divergence even suggested between interests of capital and labour. It is the case rather that capital as represented by the shopkeepers and labour as represented partly by the shopkeepers and partly by the assistants is here contending unitedly against the carelessness or stupidity of the public as a whole—a public which docs not take the trouble to consider what injury it may be doing in demanding the right to purchase different commodities at any hour of the day or night. Therefore we think we shall do some good work in educating the public and in promoting the interests of both capitalists and labour concerned in the industry.

The point I wish to emphasise for the moment is a rather serious challenge to us, made in a statement in a Committee of the House of Lords: "As in 1886 so today. Thirty years have gone by." This class is still working under conditions to a very large extent which are really impossible conditions to be tolerated, in which the great bulk of the life of many of them is really nothing much more than work during the day and the mechanical passing to and fro between the work and the home. I could quote to the House an enormous number of letters which have poured in upon us, some signed and some anonymous, from a very large number of representative men and women, who tell us of the machinery in which they find themselves involved, apparently for the rest of their lives. They are to go on working seventy-five, eighty, and even ninety hours per week—well over fourteen hours per day—under conditions which render it impossible for them not only not to carry out the ordinary methods for their own improvement, but oven to carry out the obligations which every citizen in this country should recognise as incumbent. I hear an interruption opposite which I think is relevant. I have nothing to do with any particular scheme of national service, but I think it would be a very good thing if these people had an opportunity to enlist in the Territorial Army. That opportunity is now denied them under conditions of labour which we believe are not inevitable, and which this House could alter without injuring anyone. Undoubtedly representations have been made urging hon. Members to advocate either the rejection or modification of this Bill. It is easy for us not to do anything in view of the amount of legislation now pressed upon us. We do not expect to get any credit for doing it, but we feel it is a scandal that existing conditions have lasted so long, and that it would be well on our part if we could essay some legislation. Therefore we offer our proposals to the House very far from suggesting any kind of verbal inspiration about any Clause or about any line. We ask that the Bill may be sent to a Committee. Not to ask for evidence, for if hon. Members will consult the Blue Books they wall find that the evidence is fully available for everyone who wishes to see it, but to a Committee of leisure and quietness, containing many of those who have a right to speak on the matter, which may seriously thrash out, day after day, the various Clauses which we shall submit. We believe that as the result of that leisure and the result of that deliberation there may be put this year upon the Statute Book a social reform which is long overdue. We believe that without any appreciable loss to any trader in this country, and certainly without any decrease in the general consumption of commodities, we may so put pressure upon the public, which is the master of this trade, and which is cruel only because it is careless, that there may be larger opportunities given for efficiency, for leisure, and for happiness among the hundreds of thousands of people to whom these opportunities are at present denied. I beg to Move.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY

moved, as au Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

May I be permitted very respectfully to congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon the lucidity with which he has expounded this measure. I can only say I wish that he brought the same calm impartial judgment to bear upon all classes of subjects with which he deals. Whilst I congratulate him upon this lucidity, having made myself fairly familiar with the propositions of this Bill, I also congratulate him upon his marvellous discretion, for he has studiously avoided meeting any one of which I conceive to be, and what I submit to the House to be, the main and vital objections to the measure. But he has, I admit, made a most amazing confession to the House. After taking us through the history of the four or five measures similar to this which have been considered, he has told us that this Bill is not necessarily a final one. Surely that is the best reason which can be adduced to answer his own question as to whether it should be sent to a Select Committee or not.

1.0 P.M.

The hon. Gentleman says what is the use of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. He asks the House what further evidence could a Select Committee obtain. The hon. Gentleman forgets this important fact, that none of the other Select Committees have had the measure before them. I would ask the Home Secretary, who, I understand, will wind up the debate, to note, and I urge this view upon the Government, that it is one thing to appoint a Select Committee to consider an abstract proposition, and quite another thing to send to it a definite and formal measure which can be examined and investigated, clause by clause, and line by line, and I do hope that the Government will reconsider its decision not to send this Bill to a Select Committee, and that, failing that, the very least concession they will make will be to keep the Bill upon the floor of this House. I do not like these quiet Committees. They are too quiet, and too peaceful and too sparsely attended to secure the adequate examination of a measure of this importance.

My objection to this Bill is that while it is a Bill for a good object, it seeks to accomplish it by utterly inadequate and altogether unsuitable machinery. Its principle is to apply the spirit of the Factory and Workshops Act to shop assistants. The hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Beading, quoted the reports of various Committees, but he did not quote the extract from the report of the only Royal Commission, I think, which has ever investigated this subject, the Royal Commission of 1875. In that Report they say:— The task of protecting the shop assistant from overwork is beyond the power of the staff of Factory Inspectors, and the regulation of retail shops is outside the principle of the Factory Acts. That was the report of the Royal Commission, and I am bound to say, having taken a good deal of trouble in the matter, I do not think there is any remarkable enthusiasm for it amongst that downtrodden class whose lot has been so pathetically painted to us by the Mover of the Bill. I do not know that the Home Secretary in his heart is very enthusiastic about the measure. I understand that he told a deputation——

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)

The hon. Gentleman has no right to make that observation.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY

I am going to give my reason for the observation. I was going to observe that the right hon. Gentleman, who has interrupted me so very promptly, told an important deputation last year that the great desire of his heart was to see the Bill of last Session pass into law before he sat down to his Christmas dinner. Then, when the Bill was the first Order of the day, shortly before that festival came round, the right hon. Gentleman's heart and soul failed him, and he assented to the Dissolution of Parliament, 80 that the Bill could not be considered. That is only a small debating point of a kind of which we shall have a large dose before this discussion is closed. I will quote some authorities which will appeal to the imagination of the Members of the Government. The Lord's Day Observance Society is not in favour of this Bill. In one manifesto they say that "The passage of this Bill means the end of the Lord's Day." The Early Closing Association is not enthusiastically in favour of this Bill, and so far as the Jews are concerned the Jewish Board of Deputies is strongly opposed to the Bill, and at a meeting the other day the chairman said: "We hope the Home Secretary will abandon these objectionable features of his proposed Bill." These are the features referring to the Jewish traders. Therefore, I think, I have established, so far as many of these authorities go, that there is no enthusiasm for the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman spoke a good deal about "social reform," a claptrap phrase with which it is sought to justify every encroachment upon the natural and legitimate rights of the private citizen and to justify the introduction of any degree of parental and officious interference with the habits and avocations of the people. I have only to look at the sponsors of the Bill to satisfy myself of that. There is the Postmaster-General, the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, and the Solicitor-General. I suppose if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had canvassed the whole of the Government he could not have found three more truly representative Ministers for the purpose of fathering a measure of this kind. I hope I am not offensive, but I do not believe that one of them in his most hilarious moments has over been guilty of a smile which would have been discreditable to a stained-glass window. I must apologise to the Under-Secretary. I can only suggest that the addition of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Clocugh) would have completed it, and would have brought the sponsorship of the measures into true harmony with its provisions. I feel that the Bill has been hurriedly and carelessly drawn and prepared. I do not think there is much practical brain behind it. One illustration will suffice. One of the most important deputations seen by the Home Secretary, at the office of his Department, one of shopkeepers, was called for twelve o'clock on a Saturday, a time when scarcely any shopkeeper could attend without seriously jeopardising his business. Perhaps the Home Secretary thought from the smallness of the attendance that the interest in the measure was not great. I think the House will regret that we have not the advantage of the presence of Mr. Seddon in discus-sine this measure. He is a great authority on the subject, and he speaks for a large body of shop assistants. I have adopted a course in regard to this Bill which I recommend to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to measures of this kind. I convened a conference of all the shopkeepers and representatives of the assistants in my own Constituency, and I took the daring step of bringing the shopkeepers and Mr. Seddon as representing the shop assistants together, and I have a written declaration that conferences of that kind would be more calculated to cure the admitted evils of shop assistants than all the measures ever drafted by a Government Department. Mr. Seddon addressed the meeting, speaking better than he can speak in this House for the shop assistants as a class. These are one or two of the phrases he used. "I am not in love with this Bill," "We must find some basis of compromise." "The Government has made a blunder." "The Bill is too complicated and too costly." "The Bill is even worse in many respects than last year's Bill." It is only fair to him to say that he would be in favour of giving a Second Reading with a view to very considerable amendment. That is the considered opinion of the representative of the shop assistants.

On the Second Reading one is anxious to avoid Committee points and I pass over three or four criticisms of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) did not refer, just as indicating the clumsiness with which it has been prepared, and the difficulty there will be to carry it out. All the previous Shop Bills have permitted on Sunday the sale of what have been called newspapers and periodicals. In this Bill, for some extraordinary reason—I really cannot believe the Home Secretary's attention has been directed to it—the word "periodicals" has been taken out. I am speaking of the unfortunate citizen who cannot buy his "Christian World" on a Sunday. You may conceivably get the "Referee." That may come within the definition of newspapers. How you are going to define "newspaper," especially in these days, is a question I leave to the Home Secretary. This is another point. You may buy smokers' requisites on a Sunday. I suppose a box of matches would be smokers' requisites, but if a poor woman wanted a box of matches to light a fire with she could not be served, unless she had a pipe in her mouth. "Motor and cycle accessories to travellers." I do not know what that limitation means. I do not know whether they must be moving at the time when they buy them, or whether they have to prove their destination, or whether they come within the three or six-mile limit, or what test is to be applied. Then there is a most extraordinary thing. Under the first part of the exceptions you are allowed to sell refreshments on a Sunday, but under the second part of the Schedule you must not sell fresh milk except, I think, within certain hours. At any rate, these are Committee points, and I do not want to press them too much. But the main thing is this: The Bill makes an invidious distinction between the large and the small shopkeeper. Are you sure it is not going to result in this, that a very large number of shop assistants will lose their work? I have cases in my own constituency of men having one assistant who say if they are to be subjected to all this inquisition they will get rid of the assistant and employ members of their own families. I have cases in which a man has a second shop run by an assistant, and he says he will have to close it. It is the opinion of the shop assistants themselves that that danger exists to a very large extent. A large number of shopkeepers give their assistants holiday and sick pay. You do not think they are going to continue that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Many of the most representative associations of shopkeepers say they are not going to continue it. I am not making rash statements without being prepared lo quote chapter and verse if necessary.

There is another point I want the Government to consider. I suppose it applies equally to licensed premises, and I take it every barmaid, every barman, every potman, and every employé in a public house or hotel will be subject to the provisions as to hours. The Shop Assistants Union does not recognise these people as shop assistants. Mr. Seddon's union does not allow them to join it. He says the barmaid and barman are special employés regulated by special haw and are not shop assistants, and cannot join the union. I throw out this suggestion. You have given the publicans their Budget, you have promised them a fresh edition of the Licensing Bill. Do you not think you might take them out of this Act and leave them to manage their trade so far as their relations with their employés are concerned, not one of whom by letter or memorial or deputation, or in any other way has requested to be brought within the benefits of the measure? You will not only shut up many small shops, but you will favour the big stores, you will favour those places which have telephones fixed up for orders and you will give the wealthier shopkeepers an immense advantage over the poor, little, struggling shopkeeper, who finds it very difficult to get a living. I do not want to say much about class legislation. I am glad to know I shall still be able to get a shave on a Sunday, but I do not think it is fair that the working man should have to get it in certain hours at inconvenience to himself. He may have been working all night. There are many who work all Saturday night and go home in the early hours of the morning. If the barber likes to remain open why should not they have a shave as well as the wealthy man who sends for the barber to his house?

Now I want to say a word about the Sabbatarian section of the Bill. It was the very existence of this section which attracted these sponsors on the back. This is largely a Sabbatarian measure. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) has told us roughly what the exceptions are. Again he has thrown over one of his own committees. The Joint Committee on Sunday Trading, in 1906, strongly expressed the opinion that many other things besides this permitted in this Bill could be sold on a Sunday. Here is an extract from their report. After recommending the exemption of refreshments, newspapers, magazines, and periodicals, they say:— There are also certain articles, namely, bread, fish, fresh vegetables, fruit, meat, and ice, the sale of which the committee consider should be allowed during part of the day subject to by-laws made by the local authority. Is a man to be allowed to sell bread and milk and not to be allowed to sell fish? It will remove the opportunity from the poorer classes of obtaining fresh food, especially in the summer months, when it is difficult to keep fish. I say that the exclusion of fish is a very great hardship to the working classes. It has been said that people can do their shopping on Saturday night. I do not agree with that. There is a large section of the artisan class who cannot do their shopping on Saturday night because they cannot bring home their money in time. But assuming that they could do their shopping on Saturday night, I would ask the House to consider the conditions under which thousands of poor people live huddled together in little rooms. Will the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) deny that the conditions are such that it would be absolute indecency to compel them to store the Sunday dinner on Saturday night. What facilities are they to have on Sunday? The right hon. Gentleman is to have the right to declare a certain area available for street trading on Sunday. He alone is to have the right. If an order is made we may have a repetition of what happened in the case of the Education Circular. Some official will make, or refuse to make, an order. How can the right hon. Gentleman make himself personally acquainted with the requirements of a given area? The matter is left absolutely to his will. There is nothing about receiving any representations from a district. He is to have power to declare a certain area one where it is customary to hold markets. If he refuses to declare an area the poor people in the district may whistle. You may in this way get rid of the muffin man and the winkle man, who are very popular and very valuable among the poor. Costermongers are entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

I want to call the attention of the House to what I conceive to be the vital objection to the Bill. I cannot think that the Under-Secretary has read the Clause which says that for the purpose of carrying out the Act—and it is the only way you can carry it out—the local authorities are to appoint inspectors who are to have conferred upon them the powers of Sections 119 and 121 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. I wonder if the hon. Member ever read these sections. I wonder if he knows the powers he is going to give to the inspectors to worry, harass, and rule shopkeepers if this Bill becomes law. This is what may happen under it. In every part of the country a body of inspectors will be appointed, and they can enter at any time of the day or night any shop or any place which they conceive to be a shop. They can take a police constable with them if they wish. Having got in they may require the production of all registers, notices, and documents kept on the premises in pursuance of this Act. They can sit down or stand up, inspect, examine, or take copies of the same. They can make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary, in their opinion, to ascertain whether the requirements of the Act are being respected. They can do something more. I wonder if the Under-Secretary knows this. They can go to any school in the country in which they think there is a boy who is employed, or may have been employed, in any shop, and examine that boy either alone or in presence of the schoolmaster, take from him and require from him a written declaration of the terms and conditions existing in the shop in which he has worked or is at the present time working. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is not much in that."]

Mr. CHURCHILL

Does the hon. Gentleman know that all those powers are in operation under the Act of 1904?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY

I did not know that, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not know until his hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) whispered the information to him. It was then that the right hon. Gentleman rose with such an air of learning. Let me respectfully say that they are both wrong. These powers are never exercised under the Act of 1904, and never have been, because the purposes for which they were applicable are so limited under that Act that there is no necessity or justification, but if you once put this Act in force and employ every one of this new army of officials, I will tell hon. Members what it matters. It means that at the busiest time of the day on a Saturday, when a shopkeeper is serving his customers, an inspector, accompanied by a policeman, steps in and says: "Just stop that nonsense serving customers, and let us have your books and registers." Is that not what is likely? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I hope I am not making an invidious comparison when I say that I know the police better than the hon. Member. I mention that power to show that this is a serious menace to the shopkeeping community, and it is one which the House will not be likely to confer upon the police.

I apologise to the House for mentioning the last point. It is almost out of order in these days. Has the Government considered the cost of this Bill?—a very relevant observation. I cannot get it out of my own head. Has he formed any estimate of what it is going to cost? The Weights and Measures Act costs £100,000. [An HON MEMBER: "That is very cheap."] Under the Weights and Measures Act you are supposed to get the true weight for what you pay. Under this Shops Bill you are going to have this army of inspectors at enormous cost, without creating any substantial benefit. I rose for the purpose of moving, "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months." I listened attentively to the Under-Secretary who introduced the measure in the hope that he would tell us that there is a general consensus of opinion that there should be a Select Committee. If he had said so I would have acceded to that course. If he had even said that he will leave the Bill in the control of the House, I would willingly have saved the House the trouble of a Division when we all have other occupations in view. Unless the Government give us something of that kind I can only say that I regard the measure as so retrograde in character, really so ill-considered, and so unlikely to result in general good to the community and shop assistants, that I shall be-obliged to press the Amendment. I would say, in conclusion, that there is a very strong feeling that if you would only extend and consolidate the provisions of the 1904 Act you could get everything you want. If, instead of interfering with the hours of shop assistants, you were to interfere with the hours of shops themselves, and if in every district you could have a local authority Order issued regulating the number of hours during which shops in that district would be open, you would secure every benefit you get out of this Bill. I am confident, by an arrangement between shop assistants, on the one side and shopkeepers on the other, with a view to dropping Part 1 and strengthening Part 2 and closing the shops, if you will have-Socialism in these days, at certain times-throughout the whole country, you will get every benefit that is desired, and you will not get any of the horrible disturbance and officiousness arising under this Bill. In the-absence of any such assurance as I have indicated, or its equivalent, I shall reluctantly have to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

I rise to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Hackney. The statement made by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Masterman) in introducing the Bill, I venture to say, would alone furnish good grounds for the rejection of the measure, because if it is such a very difficult subject that though three successive Bills have been introduced within the last nine years the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary, after all this delay, have not now been able to arrive at a final form of a Bill it shows either that it is practically impossible to do so or that sufficient time has not been given to the consideration of the matter. I do not think anybody can attach much weight to the argument of the Under-Secretary. He said that something similar to this legislation existed in the case of factories. A shop is not a factory, and the conditions of work in the two are totally different. Then legislation in the factory is confined to women and children. This is not confined to women and children, but deals with the hours of adult male labour. I object to this Bill very strongly for that reason. I am old-fashioned enough still to hold the old Tory belief that if a man chooses to work he ought to be allowed to work as long and as often as he likes, and that instead of being a discredit to him to work hard it is a credit, and it is what we ought to encourage and not discourage. Now comes down the Under-Secretary and brings forward a Bill on the ground that certain people have to work, and not only that, but that their periods of relaxation are short. Is not everybody in that position? Take the lawyer in practice. The whole of his day, from the time he gets up in the morning until he goes to bed, is passed in hard work. Some of the greatest men of the day have been men who have come to mature age under those circumstances.

All the judges, I believe, are examples of this. I believe I am right in saying that there is no class of men who live to a greater age or keep their faculties longer than His Majesty's judges. I believe that some hon. Members opposite do not altogether hold with the decisions of judges, but that is no evidence that I am not right or that the judges do not keep their faculties longer than most men and work harder than the vast majority of men. I hold that one of the reasons why this country is falling into arrears in comparison with other countries is that we are now endeavouring to legislate in order to prevent people doing what they like to do in the shape of a hard day's work. We are rather social reformers. God only knows what a social reform docs mean, but it seems to mean what each particular person thinks it ought to mean. At any rate it comes to this that nobody should do any work and everybody should enjoy himself. How on earth can you carry on a great country with ideas like that permeating legislation and the Government class of the country? Only a few years ago we passed a somewhat similar Bill, the Miners' Eight Hours Bill. We were told then that it was necessary to limit the amount of adult labour in mines because the miners worked in a peculiar manner. They were always underground, they did not see the sky and the trees and the sun and all that kind of thing, and, consequently some exceptional special legislation must be passed for them which would not apply to other people. Within a very short time similar legislation is feeing applied to people who do absolutely different work from that of the miners, and not only that but the Under-Secretary and the Home Secretary seem to have forgotten the fate that overtook the Miners' Bill. It has not carried out the expectations of its promoters. On the contrary, instead of satisfying everybody it has set everybody by the ears. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not know whether he has been in Wales with the police, but if he has he would not have found that the Eight Hours Bill had tended to please.

It will surely be found that this Bill, if unfortunately it passes, will satisfy nobody, and if it has any effect at all it will merely have the effect of introducing later on fresh and, in my opinion, more ruinous legislation in that direction. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection made, if he will excuse my saying so, what thought was an extremely good point, especially as I had intended to make it my-self. That point was that the Home Secretary can apparently do what he likes to carry out this Bill. Under this Bill the Home Secretary is put in the position of a dictator. I object strongly to that. If we are to make laws, I believe it is this House that should do so, and when the laws are made their administration should be left to the judges and the law courts, and we should not set up a dictator in the form of a Secretary or an Under-Secretary, and allow him to do just whatever he pleases, as long as he happens to hold office. I think that the attention of the House and of the country ought to be drawn to this because it is not the first time the Government has attempted to do it. In the Housing and Town Planning Bill we had set up the President of the Local Government Board in a similar position., It seems to be the object of all Secretaries of State now to go beyond the province of dealing with the House of Commons and to pass Bills which will enable them to dictate the business of other people. As far as I know, the greatness of England has been brought about because people were left free to do what they liked, and there were no restrictions and no Home Secretaries or anybody else to come down and tell them what they might and what they might not do. Apparently they are changing all that, and they are setting up in every direction not only vexatious laws but are giving powers over which this House has no control—at any rate, which this House does not know what they would mean—to Ministers sitting on that bench. That is not restoring the power of the House of Commons, which I thought the present Government was determined to do. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Bottomley) talked about the cost of the measure, but it did not seem to interest many hon. Members below the Gangway opposite; I am not sure that it interested many people on my own side.

I saw a smile of derision on the opposite benches, because cost does not enter into the minds of hon. Members in that part of the House at all. Why that should be I am quite at a loss to understand. But the cost of this Bill is a very important item. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Master-man) who introduced the Bill is a man of great business acumen, and he sees the very great difficulty in which the Government will be on the score of expense. The Bill provides for the creation of an enormous army of inspectors. Every Bill now brought in by the Government provides for the creation of an enormous number of inspectors. We have only to look at the Civil Service Estimates to see how greatly they have increased. Everyone knows it. Yet on the top of all this the Under-Secretary is going to create another enormous army of inspectors without the slightest idea of what the measure is going to cost; at any rate, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of what the cost will be, though perhaps he can ascertain by moving along the bench to obtain the information. It would interest myself and the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill to know what it is going to cost. We were told by the Under-Secretary—at least, I understood him to say so—that the shopkeepers and shop assistants themselves were practically unanimously ill favour of the Bill. I believe the association representative of the shop assistants is more or less in favour of the measure, because they have been captured by the Socialists, who wish to provide for the regulation of everything by the State. The Bill may be approved by the Socialists, but that the majority of shopkeepers are in favour of it is beyond my comprehension. I have a series of letters which I have received over yesterday and to-day from members of the Shopkeepers' Association which are against the Bill. I have one from the Chief Dairy and Offices, Elgin Avenue, London, W. (Messrs. Wel-ford and Sons), who write:— As our Member in respect of the properties occupied by us in your constituency we respectfully ask your … interest to oppose the Shops (No. 2) Bill. The letter goes on to say that a milk-carrier or dairy assistant would be forbidden to be on duty more than sixty hours, and adds:— Such an order would be a very great hardship, particularly in the poorer districts where there is little or no accommodation for keeping milk over in a sweet and good condition. … We need hardly point out that the milk is yielded by the cows at regular intervals—twice daily. That is a tact which is not always remembered by these ardent Social Reformers. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary will introduce a Bill to regulate the supply of milk, so as to conform to the regulation that milk carriers and dairy assistants are not to be on duty more than sixty hours per week. A Bill for the regulation of the time of the Milk Supply might be introduced, but I am afraid it would not have any effect, and, like most of these measures, it would be without result, because incapable of application. It would be quite impossible to supply milk to the people if the hours are to be limited as proposed under this Bill. Then I have here from Messrs. Baxter and Son, Billingsgate, who object to the Bill, and who apparently sell winkles and shrimps. The hon. Member below the Gangway opposite, a Member of the Labour party, who laughs, seems to think that winkles and shrimps are a joke. May I point out that they form part of the food of those classes of the community which he is supposed to represent, and it will be a serious thing for them if they are unable to buy that food when they like. The firm who write to me give many reasons against the Bill. They point out, that it is impossible to keep winkles and shrimps for long; that a great deal of money is invested in the shrimping boats, and that, if the Bill becomes law, owners and crews would lose their sole occupation, while the vessels would be rendered valueless. I have a telegram from the Meat Trade, who oppose the Bill, and regard many of the provisions of the Bill as unworkable. The Incorporated Society of London Meat Traders, in a circular which they have issued, point out that:— Meat is the most perishable of all commodities, and recquires to be distributed to the customer in the most expeditious manner possible, with the mimium amount of handling. They say it is quite impossible in populous neighbourhoods to have a working week of sixty hours, and that a working week of sixty-five hours is the minimum. The Metropolitan Grocers', Provision Dealers' and Oilmen's Association, who are strongly against the Bill, write to say that as my constituents they rely on my opposing the Second Reading. They say that they support a different Bill from that which is now proposed. I have also from the bakers opposing the measure. I think I have shown the Under-Secretary, therefore, that his statement that the majority of the shopkeepers are not in favour of the Bill is not justified by the facts. Theoretically, no doubt, it would be the best thing to have the first day of the week a day of rest, but it is almost impossible to carry out. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary has contemplated the fact that it is just as hard for omnibus men and railway men, motor drivers and taxicab drivers to work on Sundays as it is for shop assistants. Why should the shop assistants be picked out unless the hon. Gentleman is going to bring in a general Bill which will apply to all kinds of trades? There might be something to be said for that, though it would be a considerable inconvenience. But I cannot see that there is anything to be said for a Bill which allows certain people to work on Sundays and says others may not do so. I do not know what the temperance people say. I do not see many temperance people in the House at the present moment. I do not apply the observation personally—I mean the advocates of temperance.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

Look at your own side.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not think there are—we are too sensible. I do not know what temperance advocates think about that part of the Bill which allows the public houses to remain open on Sundays. I should like to draw the attention of the House to some of the extraordinary provisions in the Bill. We were told by the Under-Secretary that this is not going to be a final Bill, but the Bill as it is is absolutely unworkable. Section (3) of Clause 2 says:— For the purposes of this Section overtime shall be reckoned in periods of half-an-hour, and any period of overtime of less than half-an-hour shall be reckoned as a complete half-hour. Therefore, if a man works for three minutes owing to some work not being quite complete, or on account of a customer coming into the shop, then a half-hour is to be counted for those two or three minutes. Could anything be more absurd than that? The next Section of that Clause provides:— Where it is intended to employ any shop assistant overtime on any day the occupier of the shop shall, before the overtime employment commences, record in the prescribed manner the prescribed particulars with respect to such overtime employment. I know that in Clause 16 it says that if a customer is in the shop at the time of the expiration of the length of hours which the shop assistant is to work, that the assistant may continue to serve that particular customer, or serve a customer who comes in before the hour at which the shop closes. How is that to be ascertained? Sometimes a shop cannot be closed at the exact moment prescribed, and if someone came in a moment or two after that hour, what is to happen? Is the assistant to leave that customer until the shop owner has filled up the prescribed form in the prescribed manner, which might take twenty minutes? The Clause as it stands is perfectly unworkable. Clause 3 says that where a shop assistant is employed in two or more shops, the notice affixed in each shop shall specify the times of employment not only in that shop, but also in the other shop or shops in which he is employed, and the times of employment fixed shall be such that the employment in all the shops taken together is within the limits allowed by this Act. Think of all that that would involve. You may have an industrious shop assistant working a certain number of hours under this Bill. Perhaps he wants to rise in the world, and he recognises that the only way is to work hard. He receives an offer to do certain work in his spare time, but he would not be allowed unless he takes some of his other work. Even if he could manage it by some sort of juggling, he has got to inform both of his employers, and all sorts of notices have got to be affixed. The tyranny under which the unfortunate people will live if this Bill be passed will, I think, very shortly, and that is the only advantage in the Bill, eject the present Government from office.

Part II. provides that a shop may be kept open for serving customers of the Jewish religion, but no other customers until twelve o'clock in the afternoon on Sunday. In his speech the Under-Secretary for the Home Department did not tell us how he was going to distinguish between a Jewish customer and any other. How are you going to find out? I should be prepared to sit down and allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me if he is prepared to tell me how he proposes to instruct his inspectors to distinguish when two customers who walk into a shop as to which one is a Jew and which one is not. The hon. Gentleman does not know, nor does anybody else, nor does any inspector, so that this provision will be quite impossible to carry out. I am perfectly certain a large number of people will resent being asked whether or not they are Jews. I presume there will be somebody in the shop who will ask, "Are you a Jew?" I do not think people will like their religion being inquired into when they go into a shop to buy a loaf of bread or a pair of shoes or something of that sort. I come to the provisions which give the Secretary of state dictatorial power. "The Secretary of State may by order declare any area in London." Why should London be singled out as the playground in which the Home Secretary may exercise his various powers under this Bill? As Member for the City of London, I do not want the Home Secretary to go down to my Constituency and say that certain things may be done or not. Why should he not go to Scotland or to some constituency like Bradford? London is a respectable place and resents this interference. "The Secretary of State may by order declare any area in London specified in the order to be an area in which it is customary to hold street markets on Sunday." I see a great many objections to that. It is in the power, for instance, of the Home Secretary, if he gets a letter from another Cabinet Minister asking that his Constituency shall be described as an area, to do so. I have a sort of recollection that something of the kind occurred about Dewsbury. Supposing this custom of one Cabinet Minister making arrangements with another as to his Constituency is to become prevalent it may be that one area in London will be included and another area excluded, simply because it is represented by a Cabinet Minister. That, I think, is not an unlikely occurrence, and it is one which we ought to guard against. That is one of the great objections to putting power into the hands of one single man such as is contained in this Bill. I come to Closing Orders, and I find a local authority may make an Order fixing the hours of closing and it is provided that the Closing Order shall not be earlier than seven o'clock in the evening on any day of the week. There is a large number of shops, especially among the smaller shopkeepers, which are carried on after seven in the evening. I know that in my old Constituency of Peck ham there was a large number of shops which did very little business in the middle of the day, but began to become active after seven o'clock. That is the very time the Bill prescribes that those shops may be closed. The Clause reads that the local authority may make a Closing Order throughout the area of the local authority, or in any specified part thereof——

Mr. MASTERMAN

I think the hon. Baronet misunderstands. That is only with the assent of the shopkeepers.

Sir F. BANBURY

I know all that, and was coming to the question of how the consent of the shopkeepers is to be obtained. Clause 4 states:— It shall be the duty of a local authority to take the steps preliminary to making a closing order under this Section if they have reason to believe … How are you going to prove that the local authority have really ascertained the wishes of the particular shops. They may make order if they have reason to believe the shopkeepers are in favour of it, or if they are otherwise satisfied. That leaves it in the power of the local authority to make the statement that, to the best of their belief, the closing is desired, and, that being so, they can make the order. Then there is a saving Clause that the local authorities shall not make an order unless, after taking objections into consideration, "they are satisfied." That again leaves it in their hands to do what they like. There is no provision as to how they are to be satisfied. How does the Under-Secretary propose to ensure that they have really taken proper steps to satisfy themselves? If you have a local authority full of fads, as very often happens, what is to prevent their saying that they are satisfied? Who is to prove that they are not satisfied? Under a later Clause the Secretary of State may come forward and compel an inquiry to be held, even if the local authority is not satisfied. There again comes in the Secretary of State, who apparently can do just what he pleases. It is further proposed that every closing order, when confirmed by the Secretary of State, shall have effect as if enacted in the Act. That is exactly what I object to. All these closing orders and different things which the Secretary of State has power to do should be enacted in the Act. I do not know of any measure, until the present Government came into office, which declared that an official of the Government might do something which, when he had done it, would have the same effect as if it had been enacted in a particular Act. I will not go through all the Clauses. [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite know that the Bill is an almost impossible one to carry out, and they do not like its defects to be exposed. There is a provision that "nothing in this Section (Clause 10) shall apply to the sale of newspapers." Personally I think there are far too many newspapers, and I do not see why newspapers should be exempted. At any rate, the people concerned are flesh and blood, and should be considered just as much as shop assistants.

2.0 P.M.

I now come to what is really one of the principal objections to the Bill. In future shopkeepers will not know under what conditions they can carry on their business. Everybody who has been in business knows that one of the chief necessities for a successful business career is to know, when you invest your money, in what way you can direct its employment, and how you can carry on your business. If you are to be interfered with by Secretaries of State, local authorities, and inspectors, it is impossible to carry on business in the same way as if you were not subject to all that interference. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill was perfectly correct when he said that one of the results of the Bill would be to worsen the conditions of shop assistants, inasmuch as it would cause lower wages and fewer advantages. When business is meddled with in this way by these various inspectors loss must accrue; the shopkeeper will have to get back the money he has lost, and I am afraid it will be out of the shop assistants that he will get it back. Clause 14, Sub-section (5), provides that "any two or more local authorities may combine for any of the purposes of this Act." What does that mean? Under it twenty or thirty local authorities might combine What is the object of that? It might lead to a great deal of tyranny, but I can see no good object that it could serve.

Mr. MASTERMAN

The answer is very simple. A great difficulty in connection with closing orders is that you may have one authority with jurisdiction over one aide of a street, and another authority on the other; consequently, there might be different closing orders in operation on the two sides of the street.

Sir F. BANBURY

That is why I object to it. In different localities, though they may be quite close together, different conditions may prevail. If you have different closing orders in operation it is because the conditions of the localities are different. There must be boundaries between the different localities, so that the old argument as to the two sides of a street falls to the ground. If a dozen local authorities combine, there must come a, place where one street is under one local authority, and another under another authority. The definition clause provides that "shop assistant" shall not include a person "if he is the only person regularly employed in the shop and is a member of the family of the occupier of the shop, maintained by him, and dwelling in a building of which the shop forms part or to which the shop is attached." That is put in, I suppose, to meet the case of the small shopkeeper. But see how badly it meets it. Supposing a small shopkeeper has no member of his family that he can put in as an assistant, he is to be in a worse position than the shopkeeper who has a son or daughter or other relation whom he can employ. If he employs a shop assistant that shop assistant will come under the Bill. The case is so plain that I cannot conceive how it is the Government have omitted to deal with it. If the Clause is left as it stands it must entail much suffering and hardship upon many small shopkeepers. I sincerely trust that the House will pause before they pass such a retrograde measure. If we are all to be Socialists let there be brought in a regular Socialist measure dealing with everything; but do not attempt to introduce these measures dealing with certain sections and certain classes of the community, measures which can have no object whatever unless you believe that the State should regulate everything and control the business and the life of every citizen. Personally I do not believe in that. I am not either a Radical or a Democrat or a Socialist, and nothing gives me greater pleasure than to be able to say so. Holding these views, I trust the House will have an interval of sanity and refuse to pass this very pernicious Bill.

Mr. HINDS

In rising to address the House for the first time I throw myself on its indulgence. It must be conceded that the Home Office and the Home Secretary have given a great deal of attention to this matter, and have gone to considerable trouble to elicit the views of all concerned. The subject is a very difficult and complex one. I say frankly that legislation is necessary. I am strongly in favour of compulsory closing. The Home Secretary on 4th July, when he introduced the Shop Hours (No. 2) Bill, stated "That the voluntary system fails to accomplish the desired results." I feel sure that the House wishes to act fairly in this matter. The duty of legislators is to see that the rights of every class of the community are observed. You have here so many clsases, so many conditions to try to legislate for that you must take a very broad view of the matter if you want to do fairly by all. I welcome this Bill, but I think the No. 2 Shops Bill was a far better Bill. I think it took all the facts more into consideration. I am very sorry that at the present time the Government has not taken up that No. 2 Bill. I know something about shop life, being occupied with it all my days. I do not think that the conditions are as bad as made out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney. Every employer of labour to-day is anxious to do all he can for the betterment of his shop assistants. I belong to a large association which covers the whole of the country. If any action is taken against one of its members by an employer that association goes into the matter and sees that good and right conditions are arranged.

Coming to the Bill, I think that the sixty hours, exclusive of meal times, is right and correct. I am still of opinion that it ought to be compulsory. For this reason you may have conditions where men, for the sake of keeping open late at night, start at ten or eleven o'clock in the morning. Under the Bill such a man will come within the sixty hours per week. I think it would have been better if the Clause in No. 2 Bill, that on three days of the week work should be finished at eight o'clock had been introduced; late hours to be worked only if the trade in the locality demanded it. I think the Government would be well advised to go back upon that matter, and to again institute compulsory closing in regard to this Section of the Bill. I am still strongly in favour of a compulsory half-holiday for shops. What I am asking for is that the same protection should be given to the shopkeepers as to the shop assistants themselves. There are to-day thousands of shopkeepers all over the country who are clamouring for protection in this matter and asking that Parliamentshould give the right to them that at the present moment it seeks to give to shop assistants. Why should the small shopkeeper be deprived of his holiday? He will be deprived of it to a great extent under this Bill. The larger shopkeepers have a loophole here. I do not think they will avail themselves of it, because there is a good deal of early closing, and the larger shops have shown a noble example in what they have done in the way of giving half-holidays and early closing. But it would appear that some one must be in as long as the shop is open. If there was an enactment in the Bill which closed all the shops in the street, then of course there is no hardship. Most men would welcome the inclusion of this in the Bill. Most of the details in the Bill are subjects that ought to be thrashed out in Select Committee. These include matters that I have heard this afternoon from the Junior Member for the City of London.

If I am satisfied on two points I will gladly vote for the Bill. One is that there is compulsory closing of shops at two o'clock on one day of the week, and the other is that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. Such a course will go a good way to satisfy my requirements. Those who trade in local centres object to this Bill being administered by the local authorities, and think that it ought to be administered by the Home Office. The non-success of the Bill of 1904 was simply because it was administered by local councils. This Bill will not be a success until the Home Office takes it under their wing, and does exactly the same as is done at the present time in connection with the Workshops and Factories Act. At a conference that I attended some time ago this matter was brought up very forcibly. A large number of traders were against placing themselves under the local authorities. If, it was stated, there was one thing more than another that prevented the employers accepting the principle of early closing it was because the matter was to be dealt with by the local authorities, for the local authorities are the worst people to interfere in a matter of this kind. I still hope the Government, will place this Bill under the Home Office.

In regard to overtime, there is a Clause which ought to have full consideration. If a man works sixty hours overtime in one situation and leaves at the end of six months, having worked his overtime, has his potential employer to ask, before he engages him, whether he has worked all his overtime? If so it may put that man out of the situation which he has applied for. I know that a similar Clause is in the Workshops Act, but it is very different there because work goes on continuously. If the worker starts his work in the morning the work is there prepared for him. It is different under this Shops Act. The man may work his overtime entirely in the first six months of the year in one shop. I do not find in the Bill what is to become of that man if he is engaged in a second situation if he cannot work overtime in that new situation. As to, inspectors, traders think, and I think, that we are over-inspected at the present time. We do not mind being inspected, but very often it is the way you are inspected, and the friction that comes in in the process of inspection. I hope that something will be done with regard to inspection. At the present time there are such a large number of inspectors coming into shops at different times of the day, and for different purposes, that one does not know what to do with them, and it is really very annoying to shopkeepers. I do not see that the shop assistant to-day is such a downtrodden man. Their condition is much improved. I have the greatest possible respect for the shop assistants; they are a class of people of very high character; they are intelligent and courteous, and they are anxious to improve their positions and to better their conditions by becoming shopkeepers themselves later on in life. We ought to do what we can to help them. Now, with regard to the question of structural alteration. I admit that in some shops the conditions are not so good as they ought to be, and I think we ought to do everything we can to better the conditions under which the workers carry out their business. Ventilation, and other things, must be carefully looked into, but I think the cost of carrying out structural alterations for improving ventilation, and so on, should be borne by all parties concerned in the property, the landlord and others conjointly. I do not think the whole of the expense should be thrown upon a small shopkeeper. Before I am satisfied that this Bill is going to be a success, or before I vote for it, I think we ought to insist upon the half-holiday compulsory closing of shops on one day of the week, and that these matters should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, and, further, that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. If these things are done I am certain we shall get good results.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS

In supporting the Second Reading of this Bill I want to make one or two references to the observation made by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomléy), who moved the rejection of the Bill. Like him, we of the Labour party deeply regret the absence of Mr. Seddon, because of his expert knowledge of the shop assistants question, and the great interest he has always taken in this particular matter. I may be permitted to make that observation without producing any party objection to it. The hon. Member for Hackney said that Mr. Seddon was present at some meeting in his constituency. I am fortunately blessed with the advice and guidance of Mr. Seddon in regard to this matter and since the hon. Member for Hackney delivered his speech I consulted Mr. Seddon upon this particular point, and I want to make a correction as early as I can in this Debate. The meeting referred to was one of shopkeepers convened by the hon. Member for the Division, and the Shop Assistants' Union in that district requested Mr. Seddon to seek admission if possible to the meeting in order to ascertain the shopkeepers' point of view in respect of this Bill. Mr. Seddon was admitted to the meeting, and when the hon. Member for the Division observed him present, it is quite true he invited Mr. Seddon to address the meeting. Mr. Seddon did so and said he was not greatly in love with the Bill. But that is not to be interpreted as meaning that the shop assistants themselves were opposed to the Bill. I have to offer a few criticisms representing the organised shop assistants' point of view, but that does not warrant the hon. Member for Hackney in saying that the shop assistants are opposed to the Bill, because they have to criticise parts of it and because they will inspire Amendments representing their particular objection.

I rather apprehended in some parts of the House it was felt that owing to the observations of the hon. Member for Hackney the shop assistants themselves had expressed opposition to this Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who seconded the rejection, suited the rôle of the Mrs. Partington of Social Reform. He is always perfectly candid in his opposition to any legislation that will improve the lot of the workers, not only in shops but in any other form of industry. He lays down the good old Tory doctrine that people should be allowed to work as long as they like and as hard as they like; I offer no objection to that, so long as it merely applies to the individual, but I do offer objection to it where the individual has not right of selection and where his economic dependence compels him to accept conditions which we claim to be inimical to his health and general capacity, and, after all, it often happened that the long hours have also the effect of denying the right to work to others in the community. Therefore, the proposition is not quite so simple as the hon. Baronet thinks, and I think he needs to qualify his observations in this respect. The hon. Baronet took exception to this Bill because the Under-Secretary, in his introductory speech, admitted that the Department did not regard this Bill as representing the limit. We do not expect a Government Department to introduce a Bill representing the limit. It is the function of this House to accept or modify any Bill that a Department introduces, and it is for this House to put its seal on what portion of the Bill it will accept and to reject others not acceptable to it.

The hon. Member for Hackney and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London advocated the sending of the Bill to a Select Committee. I certainly trust the House will not acquiesce in that proposition. The Under-Secretary told us of the numerous inquiries that have taken place, and of the mass of evidence that has been accumulated, and he has expressed the opinion that no further inquiry is necessary because the facts of the case have long since been established. I think that all parties in the House admit this to be the truth, and therefore the idea of referring the Bill to a Select Committee is simply an endeavour to shelve the measure so that the shop assistants shall not have the advantage of its beneficial proposals. When we get the Bill through a Standing Committee upstairs all interests concerned will be there properly represented. I believe in Standing Committees we have the judicial mind brought to bear from all parts of the House, although we are biassed in some measure I never claimed to be altogether impartial, and if I go on the Committee I shall be biassed from the men's point of view. On the other hand the arguments adduced by the other interests are bound to be taken into consideration, and if they are of a convincing character those who put them forward will find that the men's representatives will give them the due consideration they require. I trust no sanction will be given by this House to the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee, but I hope it will be permitted, in the ordinary course, to go to one of the Grand Committees in order that the details may be thrashed out, and a thoroughly practicable measure emerge from that Committee. The hon. Member for the Hackney Division appeared to-day in the capacity of a representative of the Lord's Day Observance Society, and he instanced this as one of the bodies opposed to this measure. I am sure the members of that organisation will be proud of their latest recruit, and of his advocacy of their point of view in this House. We recognise that there is a very difficult problem in this question of Sunday trading, and we are not convinced that the Government have adopted the right method of dealing with it. For my own part I feel that this is one of those questions upon which we can never be absolutely unanimous. There is such a diversity of interests in the various parts of the country as to make it utterly impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule applicable to all. Therefore, I feel that perhaps the only alternative left to us is to refer the whole of this complex question to the various local authorities, with the right for them to take into consideration the diversity of interests and the peculiarities of their own particular districts, and to meet them under the provisions of this Bill.

The hon. Baronet who represents the City of London is strongly opposed to any interference, as he put it, with the liberty of the individual. Nevertheless, I do not think there is any party in the State today prepared to justify the conditions prevailing amongst large groups of our shop assistants. Lord Gladstone, when he introduced his measure in 1909, admitted, as we all admit, that in some large establishments the conditions prevailing are quite excellent. On the other hand, from the experience Lord Gladstone acquired and the information he had accumulated, he was bound also to say that in a large number of cases the conditions were quite atrocious. That was very emphatic language, but I believe the facts of the case will bear it out. If we are compelled to recognise that there is amongst shopkeepers a genuine desire to effect improvements, that the shop assistants very naturally desire this improvement, and believe it can only be effected by State intervention, then I do not think that mere adhesion to any old-fashioned theory ought to prevent any hon. Member of this House from giving his support to this measure. This is a large and comprehensive Bill, which affects the interests, as we have already been told, of some 1,000,000 shop assistants, and probably 500,000 shopkeepers, large and small, and it is but right that a measure affecting such considerable interest should be subjected to thorough analysis and investigation in this House. I want to say a word or two upon one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, who feels that this Bill has been framed upon incorrect lines. That is a view which we who represent the shop assistants in this House cannot sanction. We must adhere most emphatically to the establishment of the principle of the limitation of hours and the compulsory half-holiday to the shop assistants. Some people seem to contemplate that the compulsory closing of shops would satisfy the shop assistants' claim, but we have had experience many a time that the closing of shops does not necessarily mean the cessation of the shop assistants labours. Therefore we are compelled to adhere to the point of view that the shop assistants hours must be limited and regulated, and that the weekly half-holiday must be secured to them. I admit that I have considerable sympathy with the idea of compulsory closing, and I believe that the second Bill was in that particular better than this. Of course, whilst I am prepared to co-operate in any efforts to reinsert those proposals in this Bill I can only pledge my support on condition that nothing this Bill does will jeopardise the shop assistants' claim to a statutory sixty hours or such Amendments as we may be able to effect, and the half-day closing.

In New Zealand we have some very valuable experience of the effect of a measure drafted on similar lines to the one we are now considering. All interests concerned agree that the measure has been of great benefit not only to the workers concerned but also to the shopkeepers. Prior to 1894 we found there all the grievances of which we are complaining at the present time. The shop assistants worked inordinately long hours for very small remuneration and under most trying conditions. It was true then to say that even young girls would start work at eight o'clock in the morning and be compelled to work till eight o'clock or even later at night. This would ensue for five nights a week, and on Saturdays they would be employed up to midnight, and on Sunday they would probably be able to do nothing else but sleep in order to prepare themselves for another week's drudgery. I do not know that there are many such cases in existence in this country at the present time, but I am able to attest this fact that the New Zealand experience has proved that the operation of their Shops and Offices Act has righted many of those wrongs, that all the workers are convinced that the Act has been a great benefit to them, and I believe also the employers, without exception, agree that the measure has been in no way inimical to their interests.

I have had an opportunity of reading the correspondence which has passed between Mr. Seddon and some of the largest firms in New Zealand; this has also been supplemented by the evidence of a Member of the New Zealand Cabinet, and they all admit and strongly register their opinion that a blot on that Act is the failure to enact the compulsory closing of shops and the weekly half-holiday. We have in that colony the large shopkeepers complaining of the unfair competition of the small man, who is able if he has only one assistant to let him go at the regular hours, and then he himself can keep the shop open, and thereby compete with the-larger establishments. I have found here that the apprehension exists in the minds of small shopkeepers that the large establishments will be able to compete unfairly with them because they employ larger staffs and can adjust their hours accordingly. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the other way about in this country."] I feel that the experience of New Zealand and the action of large trading organisations in this country certainly gives great force to the contention of those hon. Gentlemen who feel that we ought to restore in this measure the provisions of the previous Bill, and enact the compulsory closing of shops and a compulsory half-holiday. If anybody doubts the accuracy of any of the observations I have made, I am prepared to verify them in due course. I would like to make one or two direct criticisms of the Bill itself. We deeply regret, and I am speaking for the shop assistants themselves, the abandonment of compulsory closing. We recognise the difficulty of the Sunday closing problems, but the Labour party and the shop assistants generally want it to be known that we have no desire to increase Sunday trading facilities. We are not moved even in this Bill by any mere Sabbatarian instinct, but we do recognise the need of every worker having one free day and a half in the week. I would like, if possible, even to recognise the conscientious objections of people who really desire their Sunday free in order that they may take part in church worship or in other things, but we recognise that complete prohibition of Sunday trading is quite impracticable under prevailing conditions. One unfortunate effect of this Bill will be to legalise Sunday trading in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. CHURCHILL

There are special provisions for those countries.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS

That is an apprehension we have, but of course I accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. After all, the interpretation of these Clauses is somewhat difficult to a layman. That apprehension was rather widespread, and I think I have served a useful purpose in mentioning it. We recognise how complex and difficult this particular part of the problem is, and we regard it as one which may be very well left to the local authority to determine. With regard to Part III. of the Bill, which deals with seating and ventilation, we would respectfully inquire why you have dropped the sanitation provision in the previous Bill. We are unable to see any tangible reason for them being dropped in this measure. This part of the Bill re-enacts the seating provisions of the 1904 Act. We respectfully hope consideration will be given not only to the desirability of providing seats, but also of effective measures being taken to allow of their use in shops. We have had many complaints brought to our notice that, although seats have been provided, shop assistants have been subjected to such restrictions in the shop that they have been practically valueless to them.

I apprehend that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will contemplate some considerable opposition from this party to Clause 23. It is proposed there to exclude rural parishes with a population of less than 1,000 from the operations of the Bill. If we can get this Bill into operation we believe we shall find the general habit and practice of our people will become adjusted to it. There is a lot of carelessness among working classes in respect to shopping. I believe early closing on Saturday night would be of real benefit to the working classes. Certain sections of workers, knowing that the shops are kept open very late, go into the public-houses with the idea that they will be able to get their shopping done afterwards, and they often spend in the public-house money which would otherwise be spent on various commodities. We have no apprehension that the working classes will feel any grievance on this point. They will adjust themselves to the new conditions, recognising that they ought to give some concession to their less fortunate fellow workers in the matter of hours of labour. The exemption, I am certain, will call forth some amount of controversy. I know newsagents, in particular, feel greatly alarmed, because in some districts they have already agreed almost unanimously to Sunday closing. I believe they have asked, first of all, for the complete prohibition of the sale of newspapers on a Sunday. I am afraid that is impracticable, and that they will have to acknowledge the right of persons to distribute newspapers in the street, but I feel we ought to see whatever legislation we sanction in this House does not involve even these small shopkeepers in seven days' labour per week. The newsagent, unfortunately, cannot select any other day in the week. He is compelled to take his holiday on the Sunday. I feel, when we come to these exemptions, they will require very careful considerations, and it may be some modification of the present proposals.

The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) claimed that everybody ought to be able to walk into a barber's shop on Sunday and get a shave. Personally, I regret that hairdressers under this Bill are allowed to open up to two o'clock on Sundays. Even before I was asked to give any consideration to this Bill I received one or two deputations of hairdressers from the West End of London. The conditions of their labour and the hours which they work constitute a grave scandal to twentieth century civilisation. It is all very well to say these people need not work unless they like, but, as a matter of fact, if the shops are open, they are compelled to work in order that they may secure their livelihood, because, unless they accept these conditions, they will not be able to get a situation. I hope the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will have his apprehension that people will not be able to get winkles on a Sunday allayed. His solicitude for the working classes is almost marvellous when dealing with questions of this sort. I would ask him to accept the assurance that the working classes will look after their own interests in this particular. If they want winkles and shrimps they will get them during the hours the shops are open for the purpose of selling them. Although I have found it necessary to offer certain criticisms of the measure, and whilst I feel that the failure to reintroduce the compulsory closing of shops constitutes a blot on the Bill, nevertheless there is so much of value and good in the Bill that it is the intention of the Labour party to give it our support on the Second Reading, holding ourselves free to attempt to effect such alterations in the Committee stage as will bring it more into harmony with our views. We are glad to observe that this is one of those measures that is not treated from a purely party point of view. We are glad to observe that Members of all parties are supporting it, and I can attest that fact personally, because quite a number have spoken to me in regard to it, and have expressed a desire to facilitate its passage through the House. They will, of course, make representations from their own point of view when the matter is before the Committee. We, of the Labour party, on behalf of shop assistants extremely appreciate the attitude of all parties in this House, and we trust that the Bill may, on an early day, become the law of the land, because we apprehend that its operation will be to the benefit of a large group of worthy and respectable citizens who have not been enabled to effect their desires without the intervention of Parliament. All will acknowledge that whatever makes for the health, contentment and happiness of a large group of people like the shop assistants must also make for that righteousness which it is claimed exalteth all nations.

Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON

This is not a Bill which need be treated in any sense as a party measure, and I think that is proved by the fact that the Amendment for its rejection was moved on one side of the House and seconded on the other. While I associate myself to a very large extent with the remarks of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) and of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) I confess I find myself in this position, that there is so much that is good in the Bill that I cannot conceive it consistent with the course I ought to follow to vote for the rejection of the Motion for the Second Reading. I think it would have been better if the Bill could have been referred to a Select Committee, but I agree with the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. George Roberts) that it would have a better chance of passing if we proceeded with it in the ordinary way than if we run the risk of losing it, as I am afraid we should do if we had recourse to a Select Committee, or even to a Committee of the Whole House. With regard to the Bill itself, it provides for a sixty hours week and overtime and half-holidays, and, in the main, I think we are all agreed upon those provisions. But I feel it desirable that, if possible, some flexibility should be introduced into the Bill by giving greater powers to the local authorities, and, no doubt, in Committee upstairs provisions to that effect might be introduced. That is my criticism on the main part of the Bill.

So far as we in Scotland are concerned, I think the hon. Member for Norwich was well founded in taking exception to the Bill as it stands from the point of view of Sunday trading in Scotland. A great deal of anxiety has been created in Scotland by the terms of this measure. I frankly confess I do not think sufficient attention has been paid to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Sunday Trading in their Report of 1906, so far as Scotch feeling is concerned. In a matter like this that feeling ought to receive duo consideration from those who are in charge of the Bill. Again, greater latitude should be allowed to the local authorities than is provided by this Bill. I should prefer that the whole of Schedule 2 should be made inapplicable to Scotland. Still, these are Committee points. Like the hon. Member for Norwich, I am totally at a loss to understand why the sanitary Clauses have been knocked out from Part III. of the Bill. I hope that the Government will reconsider that matter, especially as there is no party feeling involved. That, however, again, is a matter for Committee. I do not think it is quite fair to put the onus of proving exemption on the shopkeeper when he is brought up for a contravention of the Act, as is done under Clause 12. That also requires to be considered. Clause 22, with regard to exhibitions and bazaars, will, I fear, excite a good deal of discontent amongst shop keepers. While on these grounds, I retain entire liberty of action in Committee I feel that on the whole my duty is to support the Second Reading of this Bill with a view to its being put in Committee in as good a form as possible.

Mr. CLANCY

I desire to say a few words on behalf of the party with which I have the honour to act, and as I understand that a very large number of Members still wish (o take part in this Debate, I will occupy only a few moments. I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill and to state that my colleagues will, should there be a Division, go into the Lobby in support of it. I confess that personally speaking, I do not like this sort of Bill at all. I would much rather there should be no necessity for legislation of this kind, but it must be sorrowfully admitted that the necessity for such a Bill does exist, and that it is only by special pleading it can be urged there is no need for it. In Ireland, undoubtedly, there is less necessity for it than in this country, as a great many traders there have set an example which traders of the United Kingdom would do well to follow. I have no doubt it would be far easier to give effect to this Bill in Ireland than it would be in any part of Great Britain. The objections we have heard to the Bill to-day are of two classes. We have heard, first of all, the old stock objections to reforms of this kind from the right hon. Baronet, the junior Member for the City of London, and from other Members, who, if they had lived in the days of Lord Shaftesbury, would have adduced similar arguments to obstruct every reform that has ever been proposed in this country for the alleviation of the evils under which the labouring population live. They have been trotted out again and again, and I am glad that in this House they have been treated as they deserve by both parties. The second class of objections we have heard this afternoon are mainly objections that ought to be made in Committee. The right hon. Baronet went elaborately into almost every Clause of the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY

No, no.

Mr. CLANCY

I suppose he regrets that he did not. I take leave to repeat the very trite and familiar observation that a Debate on the Second Reading is a Debate on the principle of the Bill, and on this occasion it is futile to point to this, that, or the other points, some of which may be important, and others which are unimportant, on which there is a difference of opinion, or what might be omitted.

Sir F. BANBURY

Every Clause should be omitted.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. CLANCY

If the right hon. Baronet thinks that, let him vote against the Second Reading. He did not leave us in much doubt as to his attitude, and, therefore, he need not now repeat what he has said already. May I make one criticism in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible primarily for this Bill? I think one class of trader is particularly hit, and hit unduly so far as Ireland is concerned. I sympathise most heartily, as do all my colleagues, with t