I hope I shall be in order in asking whether it is still the intention of the Government to move the Amendments which are indicated in the White Paper?

The First Lord of the Admiralty may have a statement to make. It would be a great convenience if I could formally move to recommit the Bill.

I daresay by permission of the House it could be done on the first Amendment. It is very inconvenient to have a general discussion which leads to no issue.

It would shorten the time very greatly if at the earliest possible moment the First Lord would state exactly what his intentions are. There is great difficulty in considering these Amendments without knowing those intentions.

The new Clause standing in my name raises the whole structure of the Bill.

It might be taken on that.

I beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:

I beg to second the Motion. We are in a great difficulty. The proposals of the Government, as we understand them, are a complete transformation of the whole Bill, which occupied sixteen long days in Committee ending usually at four o'clock. It is now proposed to drop the greater portion of the Bill—twenty and a half pages out of twenty-nine—and to transform the remaining Clauses in important particulars. There is no great controversy on the question of the compulsory half-holiday, provided that there are some minor Amendments inserted to make that matter more clear. The question of meal times is more controversial. For my part, I am not disposed to oppose the principle. I am disposed to accept it. Speaking for myself, I regard the third Clause in the new Bill as a highly controversial matter. There was a statement made in the House in answer to a question on 30th November by the Prime Minister that the Government proposed to proceed with the Bill as regards meal hours and compulsory closing for the half-holiday for assistants. In a subsequent statement the First Lord of the Admiralty introduced the question of the third Clause. I will not go into the merits of that Clause now, but I may say that it is regarded by many on this side of the House as of a highly controversial character, and that if the Government persist in proceeding with the Clause they will transform the Bill into a controversial measure. As regards the alteration of the Irish Clause, I wish to ask whether there is any change in the intention of the Government. There is a remarkable omission from the Clause, as the Government will see. I am given to understand that it will lead to considerable debate and controversy. I think it would be most convenient if the First Lord would explain to the House exactly what the Government intend to do. I think there will be no hostility to the Bill on this side if the Government drop the third Clause. If they bring in what has been called the "Gingering" Clause the Bill immediately becomes of a controversial character.

The House is, I think, aware of the reduced character of the proposals which are now embodied in this Bill, and, if they are not, they may learn from glancing at the long succession of pages over which we went, inch by inch, in the Committee, and which are now relegated to the category of waste paper. But the Shops Bill, in one form or another, has been before the public for the last three years, and during the whole of that time this great body of persons who are grossly oppressed have been looking forward to some Parliamentary relief. It is quite true that, owing to the pressure of time and the period of the year, we are not able to proceed with the sixty hours' limitation. I should like to remind the House that it really amounted to a sixty-eight hours' week when the provisions for meal time and overtime were considered, but we were not even able to get that, and I had to recognise with the very greatest regret—it is a very keen personal disappointment to me—that the Bill cannot be carried further in this great and most important particular. Whether a Bill based upon the principle of compulsory closing of shops would have had a better chance or not I cannot say. I have frequently expressed my own opinion on the subject. I am quite sure that once the House begins to close shops by compulsion from Westminster they will find that the bulk of the opposition on behalf of the little shopkeepers, who have no assistants, and who constitute the overwhelming majority of the shopkeepers of the country, and with whom we have had difficulty to face as to the method proposed by the Bill, would be incomparably larger. It is quite impossible to go back on the question of the sixty hours week. That is gone so far as the Government is concerned. The question I have had to face is whether anything can be achieved during the present Session which will to some extent console this large body of persons to whom I have referred, and who have, I admit, very little voting strength, but for that reason have all the greater claim on the attention of the House of Commons? Can anything be done to console them for the serious disappointment and failure of the main provisions of the Bill? There are two provisions about which there is really no great difference. There may be minor points here and there. These two provisions were carried unanimously, or practically unanimously in the Committee. The first secures a weekly half-holiday to shop assistants and shopkeepers—to the whole of this great body of persons. The second secures for them reasonable intervals for meals. The mealtime scheduled was agreed to between the representatives of both sides, and although I do not say that elasticity might not be introduced, I am positive that it will be an extraordinary convenience to shop assistants. It is not only a matter of convenience and comfort, which affects them every day of their lives, but it is also a question of health, because there is no doubt whatever that a great deal of sickness and ill-health is caused in the shop-assistant class by the short and insufficient time which in a great many shops is allowed to them to take particularly their midday meal. Both of these are important matters, and both of our proposals are in the nature of a real gift and boon to the large body whom they affect.

I should be deeply grieved if the House were not able to confer these advantages, and, of course, I will not let anything stand in the way, so far as I am concerned, of these two proposals. But before the House makes up its mind to treat the proposal in Clause 3 as controversial, I would like to say one word upon it. We have abandoned attempting to limit the work of shop assistants by regulation of the hours of labour. We are not attempting to limit their hours by compulsory closing of shops except in regard to the half-holiday. What is left? If there is to be any practical relief until the question can again be touched by legislation to both assistants and shopkeepers it must be by the development of voluntary early closing.

Already powers exist which, on paper, would appear to afford every conceivable facility for voluntary early closing, but in practice they have not worked. It is very melancholy and depressing to notice how very small a proportion of early closing orders has been achieved all over the country. Last year I received some seventy or eighty deputations on the subject, and was enormously struck by the great desire of the shopkeepers no less than the shop assistants to promote voluntary early closing arrangements. But there are great difficulties, which they told me about frankly, in bringing the movement to a head in any one place. What suits one shopkeeper does not suit another in the matter of hours. Then, when a movement is started by shopkeepers for early closing, each shopkeeper is regarded as perhaps pushing his own interests and making arrangements agreeable to him which act injuriously towards his rival. Then, when there has been a demand, there have been occasions when the local authority has, I am bound to say, unreasonably overruled that demand. It will be a very great stimulus to early closing arrangements if the House assents to machinery by which persons of the same sort of character, though suited to this particular sphere, as those who will be on the panel of the Board of Trade arbitrators, perhaps not persons of such high consequence, but persons of that impartial non-political character, can from time to time be sent down by the Secretary of State into districts where the early closing movement is hanging fire, and can hold a full inquiry, and after hearing everybody on the spot, perhaps draft a scheme of early closing suited, as such scheme should be suited, to the varying complexity of conditions of each particular town and each particular trade in that town.

These will be new officials?

No, they will not. What is wanted is a person of some public standing who can go down, hold an inquiry, and make a plan, and then that plan has to be voted on in the ordinary way under the regular provisions.

What is this £20,000 to be spent on? As I understood, it is to be the salaries of these new officials.

No. It is not proposed to make any appointments at all of any kind. They will be simply nominated on the same terms as the Board of Trade panel of arbitrators. That is, I suppose, they will get the payment, while they are actually holding the inquiry, which is given to persons serving under such provisions. I am quite sure that if the House allows this system to be set up it will just give the extra fillip to the early closing movement, which would render it effective in all sorts of districts where at present it is brought to a standstill. The alterations in the Bill involve certain alterations in the Irish Clauses, but I will defer that subject until we actually reach the point; and I think I shall be able to convince the House that there is nothing to dispute about in the changes. Otherwise there is no substantial alteration in the Bill. No Amendment is made except one or two of the smallest consequence in the direction of facilities other than those which have been indicated.

Is the Irish proposal that which is stated in the Paper?

It provides, in the case of any shop, in which the trade or business or sale of beer or intoxicating liquors is carried on in conjunction with other business, for the exemption of such shop from closing on the weekly half-holiday. It does not mean that shop assistants in Ireland will not get their half-holiday, which is compulsory under the Bill. They will get that. What it does mean is that a shop where liquor is sold in Ireland will not be closed compulsorily, and, of course, shops where liquor is sold in England will not be closed compulsorily, because licensed houses are altogether outside the scope of the half-holiday provision except as regards the individual employés. There are many shops in Ireland which carry on a joint business, and it is not practicable to carry closing of shops so far there, but the half-holiday will run all over the United Kingdom.

Upon this side of the House we are entirely in favour of the two main provisions of the Bill, which the Government, I think quite rightly, have treated as non-controversal. The proposal for the weekly half-holiday, I think, came from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester in the first instance, and was accepted by the Government. For myself, I can say, as I said not very long ago, I would infinitely prefer to lose my dinner than to lose my weekly half-holiday. That is entirely beyond controversy. As regards the provision of meal times, I agree with what the First Lord has said. It is not only a provision for health, but it is also a provision for enjoyment. Nobody but very austere people would deny that meal time is a time of enjoyment. For a meal to be enjoyed it is quite manifest that some leisure should be granted for that enjoyment. To the Bill, so far as it carries out those two proposals, on behalf of all my hon. Friends I promise that we shall give cordial support and do nothing to hinder its passage. But with regard to Clause 3, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is regarded as highly controversial on this side of the House. In my view, it would set up friction between the central Government and the local authority, which is most undesirable in this question. For the life of me I cannot see what place it has in the Bill at all. I think, if you examine the Clause, it will be found that it really must have been left in the Bill by accident. Be that as it may, and speaking for myself, I am in favour of this Bill, but, most distinctly, not in regard to the proposal to send an official to the local authority to interfere with it, because, so far from facilitating early closing, I should regard such a course as likely to have the contrary effect. Nothing is more dangerous, especially in an isolated Clause of this kind, than to devise machinery which, to put it shortly, would set up the backs of many local authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman does not persist in Clause 3, we shall certainly expedite in every reasonable way the two main principles which, even taken alone, I believe to be a very substantial boon to a large class of shopkeepers and shop assistants.

The Amendment upon which this discussion is taking place has been only formally moved, but it is to be regretted that the circumstances are such that it cannot be fully discussed and decided upon in this House. I realise that the Government have come to a decision to exclude all other considerations from this Bill save what the right hon. Gentleman calls two matters, but which, I think, are three in number—namely, the hours for meal times, half-day holiday for the assistants, and half-day closing for shops. The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech he has just made, said it was his intention to have a half-day for shops and a half-day for assistants. We now find an appeal is made to the Government to seriously prejudice the third of these provisions—namely, the half-day closing of shops, because I understand the position to be this: That a sort of covert threat is held out that unless the Government give a pledge not to proceed with Clause 3, which contains the machinery for enabling shops to be closed, the other portions of the measure will not go so smoothly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I may be allowed to explain what I mean. The first two provisions of this Bill deal with the hours of meals and the half-day holiday for assistants. Those two provisions have nothing whatever to do with Clause 3. The appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, is in regard to Clause 3, and I hope no indication will be given as to what shall be done as to that Clause, and that it will be dealt with absolutely on its merits when it is reached. It does not seem to me a reasonable thing to suggest—and if that is not the suggestion I cannot understand the meaning of the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at this stage—that unless an undertaking is given with regard to Clause 3 then the other Clauses will not be so non-controversial as they otherwise would be. I hope the House will not be put into that position.

The Home Secretary stated, and very rightly, that there is an intense desire among shopkeepers of the country to get a half-day holiday for themselves as well as for their assistants, and they will be extremely disappointed if, while they are quite prepared and anxious that the assistants should have the half-holiday, at the same time we did not provide them with efficient machinery to obtain their half-holiday. When we come to Clause 3, I think we shall be able to show that it is necessary to proceed with it and set up the machinery in order that early closing may be obtained. Immense labour was spent upon the Bill over a long period in Grand Committee, yet now, within a week or two of the end of the Session, the announcement is made that it is no longer to be a consolidated Bill, and that just two or three brands are to be snatched from the burning, valuable, I admit, but I do think it is a reflection upon the Parliamentary machine that, after all the work that has been done, the House of Commons has to admit that the most it can do on this great question is for the two or three things which it is now attempted to save. Why is it? In the first speech I made, after having had the honour to become a Member of this House, I urged that the measure should be sent to a Select Committee, but I was persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary to vote against my own suggestion. I am satisfied that if it had been sent to a Select Committee, we might not have got the Bill at this moment, but I am perfectly sure we should have arrived at some common agreement and obtained very much more than we are now going to get. I am in this position: I dare not seek to amend this Clause to any extent because of the limitations of time. We have only two or three hours to deal with the Bill, and if, in consequence of anything we did, the Bill was dropped, our blood would be on our own heads, and it would be said that we had deprived the people of the half-holiday. I am not taking that position. I am quite prepared to do all I can to see that the shop assistants get their meal times and their half-holiday, and also to see that the shopkeeper also gets his half-holiday. I admit the difficulty of the question, but I must leave the responsibility for the present position with the Government.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has really not fairly interpreted the position of hon. Members on this side of the House. Our view of Clause 3 has nothing whatever to do with the compulsory closing of shops once a week. That is to be statutory. Why we object to Clause 3 is that the machinery provides that an official shall be sent by the central authority to the local bodies in order to discuss with them the voluntary closing of shops. That is quite apart from the compulsory closing of shops. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension, for we do not object to the compulsory statutory half-holiday. The hon. Gentleman will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester proposed a compulsory half-holiday for shops, and he will find us equally anxious with himself to get the statutory half-holiday for shops. The First Lord of the Admiralty very "fairly stated what passed in Committee upstairs. I think it is hardly possible for us to discuss the whole Bill, but I think as to the Irish Clause, which is at the end of the measure, we must, before it is reached, discuss the bearing of that Clause and the exceptions it contains. He said something also about the hour of meal times. There may be a difference in detail, but the hour of meal times was settled by unanimous consent. I have the record here of what occurred. It was two o'clock in the original plan. An hon. Member from the Labour Benches made a suggestion of one o'clock, and after further discussion——

The hon. Member is speaking of the half-holiday.

Yes, I beg pardon. In the record in an excellent paper, "The Grocer," which is the only one which had anything like a verbatim report of the proceedings, the right hon. Gentleman said that that question would be open to discussion when we came downstairs again, and it was suggested to split the difference and make it one o'clock for shops and one-thirty for shop assistants. I observe there is an indication on the other side that perhaps two o'clock might be accepted. [HON. MKMBEKS: "No, no."] I may be wrong, but I thought I saw two Amendments from the other side to that effect. The only other point I can see as to Clause 3 is the question of fines, and I still think that the fines for offences are strenuous fines, and a great deal more than shopkeepers can stand. That can remain to a later stage, and otherwise I wish a successful passage to the Bill.

Statements have been made during the course of the discussion as to pledges having been given by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Clause 3. Personally, and speaking for my party, I know nothing about those pledges, and I hope no such pledge has been given, and consequently——

I said nothing whatever except what I said in the House.

That is so, because I have a very distinct recollection of What the right hon. Gentleman did say in the House was that the Commissioners would be sent down; that was his proposal, in order to facilitate the early closing of shops in the evenings. That was one of the points I noted as one of the redeeming features of the proposed alterations, because, to speak frankly, this Bill as it is now presented to us is a very great disappointment indeed, and here I think I speak for my colleagues. We cannot just exactly know what has happened to the right hon. Gentleman. It seems as if since he has gone to the bellicose atmosphere of the Admiralty Office his courage has oozed out at his boot toes. I am always inclined to associate the right hon. Gentleman with his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think that association finds favour in the country. They are regarded as the fighters and swashbucklers. One wonders how it is, after the display of courage and tenacity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us in regard to the Insurance Bill, that his right hon. Friend and colleague is showing so much weakness in this particular matter. What is at the bottom of it? I can understand pressure being brought to bear, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman had numbers of petitions, but so had the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the Insurance Bill. He at least, and it is to his credit, did fight, instead of weakly giving way, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to have done. For my part, I should be very sorry indeed if the right hon. Gentleman were to give way upon this question of Clause 3. From my own experience I believe some such Clause is absolutely necessary. Not only is it quite true that the difficulties which he outlined to us are there, but there is another difficulty which he did not touch upon—namely, that it is notoriously the fact in this, as in other cases, that what is everybody's business ultimately becomes nobody's business, and unless there is somebody to take the responsibility in regard to this matter then nothing will be done.

If the local authority does not show that activity which it ought to show then I join issue with the hon. Gentleman opposite in saying that I believe it is absolutely necessary on some occasions to do a little bit of what an hon. Gentleman opposite called—using a very strong phrase—" gingering." [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said it."] I am not certain who said it, the thing is it has been said, and I for my part believe it is one of those things which is necessary. In addition no mention has been made of a certain alteration which is to be made by an addition to the old Clause 9, in which, if I understand aright, certain powers which are now being exercised, not very successfully I admit, under the Act of 1904, giving power to fix a closing hour earlier than seven o'clock are to be taken away, and even those agreements which have already been entered into in regard to that matter are to lapse. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to have taken that into consideration. It may be that they resent interference with the liberties and autonomy of local authorities, but at least they ought to recognise that certain things have been taken away from the shop assistants and that the bargain is not a one-sided one as some of them seem to imagine.

I wish to indicate to the House and the right hon. Gentleman what our general position is in regard to these alterations. As I have already said, we are very disappointed indeed and we are not at all filled with admiration for the right hon. Gentleman's position in this matter. We think he ought to have shown a stronger front. We think he ought to have fought a little bit more tenaciously for the things which he advocated so very well in the earlier days of the Bill. If I am not mistaken he committed himself rather to this position, that the only thing in the Bill, as originally introduced, which he cared a straw about was the limitation of the hours of shop assistants. That, I believe, was the attitude he took up and that he strongly followed right through the Committee stage—namely, that the sixty hours' limitation of the shop assistants' hours of work was the only thing he cared much about, and that the other was so much padding to satisfy various interests here and there. Apparently now he has dropped the body of the Bill and what the Bill really set out to do, and he is giving us the husk instead of the kernel, and expects us to grow fat upon it. I do not know whether we are or not, but I do not want to let this opportunity pass without saying that we do recognise the great boon of the half-holiday, and also of the scheduled meal times.

I understand that the shop assistants are very favourable to the scheduled meal times. They believe much good will accrue. I had figures given to me the other day which for the moment have slipped my memory, but at least I was told that a very great proportion of illness amongst shop assistants took the form of indigestion, and quite a considerable majority of that indigestion they thought could be traceable to the haphazard method and manner in which shop assistants are forced to take their meals. I was given the instance of a big emporium in this city where the young lady assistants had to travel from the room in which they worked to the dining-room, no less than 750 yards, there and back, of which distance half was up and down stairs, and it all had to be done in a twenty-five minutes' meal time. We can all see what that means. To travel half-a-mile and have a mid-day meal in twenty-five minutes—one would be very surprised if it did not result in indigestion. Therefore, we are anxious to give the right hon. Gentleman all the support we can in regard to that particular point. We are not unmindful of the benefits arising from the weekly half-holiday. Our only complaint is that it does not start early enough. But in these days we must be thankful for small mercies. The House, however, must not expect us to be too thankful, when we know that up and down the country there are many places where the shops close at twelve. In his endeavour to save a little bit of the Bill we think the right hon. Gentleman might have put the hour at twelve instead of at one. We feel very strongly about this Bill, and if there were not other considerations the Labour party would be a strenuous opponent of the scheme as now presented. We believe that the type of men who sent us here will not thank us for giving the right hon. Gentleman support at all. The feeling is very keen. In fact, there have been big demonstrations in all our centres with the object of strengthening the demands of the Bill and for substituting the word "inclusive" for the word "exclusive"—which we attempted to do in Committee, but failed. We are going to support the Bill, not because we are unmindful of the great alterations which have been made or of the extremely unsatisfactory shape the Bill now assumes, but simply because we have a request from the shop assistants that we should not jeopardise the measure by pushing our opposition or our strictures too far. The letter—I will not read the whole of it—says:

"Under these circumstances we ask the Labour party, on behalf of the organised shop assistants, to accept the provision of fixed meal-times and the half holiday. We recommend this course with the greatest regret, and express our intention to continue our agitation on the question of the limitation of hours until we secure tins most important object by Act of Parliament."

Were it not for that letter I personally should not have submitted to the alteration. It is one of those things that one cannot accept without feeling very sore about it. We regard the sixty-hours' week as the pivot of the Bill, and without it I personally should have had very little interest in the matter. But the shop assistants, after all, are the people who will be most affected, and as they have asked us to do so we shall help the right hon. Gentleman to get the Bill through, in which endeavour I trust we we may be successful.

Notwithstanding the censures which have been so lavishly poured on the right hon. Gentleman by his own friends, there is a strong flavour of common sense in his decision to get what he can at the end of a hard Session. So far as my experience goes, there is a general consensus of opinion in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, and not least with regard to the standardisation of meal times. But in the country towns on market days very great difficulty will be found——

I will meet that.

Then as far as I am concerned the proposal will be satisfactory.

The charge of want of courage, I think, disproves itself when we remember the period of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman has indeed acted with common sense. It was proved to me, as a Member of the Committee, that to deal with every district in the country in one particular way and by one particular mode was really an impossibility. The first two Clauses are very important. One gives the half-holiday and the other ensures that a very large class of shops must close on one afternoon in the week. I am sorry that objection is taken to Clause 3, because the shops in the Schedule do not come under Clause 2 unless we pass Clause 3. If it is feared that the power might be used by irresponsible people, Members might be content to take out the words "or otherwise," and the Clause could then be put into operation only on the representation of a local authority. Having sat through the long discussions in Committee, I feel that if we pass the Bill as proposed we shall render a real service to shop assistants. Nobody is in favour of long hours nowadays, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is taking a considerable step towards securing a shortening which will be of benefit to all concerned.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give way on Clause 3. It is most important that we should have these men going down to the district, as he says, to "ginger" the authorities. The Act of 1904 was a failure simply because there was no provision of that kind in it. With regard to the Sunday Clauses, we in Wales have felt very strongly, and I should like an assurance from the Government that they mean to deal with the question in the near future. If they do so, they will have our best support, as we are anxious and ready for a clean Sunday in Wales. We must go on compulsory lines in a measure of this sort. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has the right to say what he has said about shop assistants. I am in favour of the sixty hours' week and the weekly half-holiday, and the only way to get them is by compulsion.

I have, of course, considered very carefully what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Lyttelton) in regard to Clause 3, and I would make this proposal to the House with a view to dealing with the issue fairly. Let us leave Clause 3 until we come to it, and then let the House divide upon it quite freely, without Government Whips or Government pressure of any kind, and decide whether or not it will be a useful thing. Then, when we get forward with the other Clauses, the House can decide on the merits of this after it has been thoroughly discussed.

I am sorry to say I cannot accept that offer on behalf of the hon. Friends behind me. The right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether or not he is going forward with Clause 3. If so the great boon that we all here desire to have will probably be lost. He must decide one way or the other.

I do not think that is quite fair to the House. I have been asked to promise not merely that I will leave the matter to the House, but that I will actually use the Government Whips to secure the deletion of a Clause that I am anxious to see included. I do not think it is a fair request. The proposal that the House should decide the matter on its merits is surely a good one.

I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would give the House the opportunity of deciding in a free way upon the question of the sixty hours' week? In his short speech this afternoon he really did not give the House any adequate explanation as to why the proposal for sixty hours has been dropped. The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that the sixty hours was the kernel of the whole Bill. After all, this Bill has been before the country for the last three years. It has been threshed out, I believe, in different forms in three Standing Committees. Two General Elections have been held since the original proposals were made. Under these circumstances it is impossible to say that the question of the sixty hours has not received the general approval of the electorate. As the right hon. Gentleman has framed his Amendments it is impossible to take a test Division on the sixty hours without compromising the weekly half-holiday. In the way the Amendments are drawn, too, it is impossible for this House to declare in favour of the sixty hours without declaring against the weekly half-holiday. There is a strong feeling amongst this section of the House, who would welcome some assurance from the Government that we should be allowed to decide this sixty hours' question. It does seem very hard that this question should be put on the scrap-heap at the last moment. It is not treating the House of Commons with proper respect. This question has been debated for the last six months in Standing Committee. It has got overwhelming support, not only in this House but elsewhere. For the First Lord of the Admiralty to come down at the last moment and draw his blue pencil through the Bill, and take out the kernel, appears to me to be nothing more nor less than sacrificing the Bill for political reasons. We should, I venture to suggest, be allowed to take a Division on the sixty hours' question in a free and unrestrained way.

The House has now occupied an hour over a totally irregular discussion. It was said that to allow the discussion would save a great deal of time, but it seems to me to have raised a great number of points of controversy without having settled any, and to have led to no issue. I therefore respectfully urge the House to get to business.

May I ask one question? Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the Opposition and his Friends will not allow the retention of Clause 3—that if Clause 3 were retained the Bill will be opposed and practically lost?

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

The Secretary of State may make regulations for prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed.

I am not sure that this is necessary. As the Bill stood there were provisions for enabling matters to be prescribed. I understand that there is a Clause which is not now to be inserted in the Bill which says, "That the Secretary of State may make regulations for prescribing anything that may be prescribed …" I, however, find that it is provided that the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904, shall be construed with this Act of 1911, and as I understand that this and other matters are covered by this new provision, I do not move.

I beg to move to leave out Clause 13.

The subject of this Clause was dealt with very fully in the general discussion which preceded the Amendments on the Paper. I dislike Clause 13 very much indeed, and if it is to stand in its present form I shall divide the House upon the Amendment. The interference of the Secretary of State with local authorities I think would be practically intolerable, and lead to a great deal of friction. I object to the Clause as an interference with purely municipal matters, and as a very evil precedent, one of the worst, because it means the granting of public money for the purpose of propaganda work being done in the provinces. On all those grounds I have the very strongest objection to the Clause. The elimination of the words "or otherwise" would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to act except on the action of the local authority. That would perhaps be desirable, and if, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to assent to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End or the hon. Member for Croydon I should desire not to press this Motion, but to move it with the view to eliciting from him an expression of his intentions.

I beg to second the Amendment. The omission of the words indicated by my hon. and learned Friend would entirely alter the complexion of the Clause, and make it practically unobjectionable. There would be no unnecessary expenditure of public money on raids into local territory. I think the right hon. Gentleman went a long way to meet some of the objections that might be raised against that part of the Bill when he indicated that he would undertake on behalf of the Government, and I take it that his statement went so far as to say that no new appointment should be made, but that persons of an impartial character should perform these duties from time to time and receive their expenses, and no more. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon to leave out the words "or otherwise," then a great part of the objection to the Clause would be removed, and I, for one, would be prepared to accept that as being a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, rather than proceed with the Opposition.

I think the proposed Amendment takes the real vice out of the Clause. If we were apprehensive it was very largely due to the manner in which the First Lord of the Admiralty introduced this proposal in the House of Commons. He talked of those Gentlemen going about the country stimulating, propagating and exasperating public opinion. I think he used words like that. At any rate, they would have an irritating effect and cause general alarm. We do not want that sort of propagation about the country, and we think the proposal might seriously interfere with the performance of the duties of local authorities. My own view is still that if this is not very judiciously exercised it is more likely to tell against the objects of the Bill than in favour of them, because I am a believer in getting local authorities on the side of the law. If you proceed to irritate them by needless interference you set them against it, and you enable the interests that are opposed to you to gather strength, and there is a real danger of the opposite effect, to that which the drafters of the Clause thought, being brought about by such means as that. Whilst I think this removes the great vice of the Clause, I understand from the First Lord that no new officials are to be appointed to carry out the Clause. Under Sub-section (5) the remuneration is to be out of moneys provided by Parliament from the Treasury, but, if that is so, I do not see that extra expenditure is required, except, perhaps, for travelling expenses. If the officials are there, it must be a very small matter, and although it may not be necessary to eliminate Sub-section (5), we understand that it is not to be a big question, and that there are not to be those appointments of special missionaries to go about the country, who, although they may have some talent for speaking, are not likely, in my humble judgment, to lead to the simple conduct of the measure. Under those circumstances I hope, if the words be accepted and an assurance given that we are not going to have officials ad hoc appointed under this Clause, that the House will allow it to pass.

Let me reiterate the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, as representing the Home Office, that certainly the interpretation, as far as the question of officials is concerned, is a correct interpretation of the intentions of the Home Office. The intention, I think, all through was not to appoint an army of officials, or even any special officials specially concerned in this work. It was explained in the Committee upstairs that the kind of person who would be employed is the kind of person who at present is on the panel of the Board of Trade and makes similar inquiries in connection with trade matters. May I also say that it is with very great reluctance we face the suggestion made in this Amendment. There is no Clause in the whole Bill which has been more welcomed by the shopkeeping fraternity throughout every part of these islands than this Clause which was framed by my right hon. Friend. Every deputation we have had—and we have had about a hundred deputations representing every class of traders—first pressed for some such power as this and afterwards welcomed it when my right hon. Friend agreed to put it in the Bill. It was put in in the interests of traders themselves, because the traders have come again and again to us and said that although there may be an almost universal feeling in a town in favour of compulsory closing, yet that it is quite impossible to get members to leave their own business in order to make themselves, as they term it, busybodies, and act for public opinion. Therefore they did very greatly welcome the suggestion that on their representation some impartial man might be sent down from the central authority, not at very great expense, and not, as my hon. Friend correctly says, in most cases much beyond travelling expenses, to unite and bring them together and to present to the local authority the united demand of the traders. I do not know whether it is of any use making a last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether, if we omit the words "or otherwise," he would be willing to allow the insertion of the words "representation of the local authority or any association of occupiers of shops that it is expedient." [HON. MEMBEES: "NO, no."] We are in his hands, and we will take his words in the matter. If even under those conditions, and realising, as I believe he does realise, that this is very greatly desired by the shopkeeping fraternity, he still thinks, speaking for his party, they are unable to accept it, then all we can say is we have done our best, and that we will be carrying out the pledge as to this bill being non-controversial.

I desire that the words "or otherwise" should go out. I do not at all understand the suggestion put forward by the Under-Secretary because he contemplated a case in which the majority, or a great number, of shopkeepers desire to fix an hour for closing. If that is the case, what possible difficulty can there be in those shopkeepers going to the local authority and saying, "A very large number of us are agreed on this point; pray move in the matter?" That is a perfectly easy thing to do. If you put in the words suggested by the Under-Secretary, "or other associations," you may have an association of three people who may represent nothing but who would be able, taking the point of view perhaps of some faddist in the district, to move the Home Office in the matter. I cannot think that that is a desirable thing. I reiterate what I said before, that if you wish to get those who contemplate early closing to act the first and most necessary thing to do is to get the local authority on your side. When you have got the local authority on your side the thing will very likely be done. There are conceivable cases—I do not think they are at all likely—where you may get a hot controversy between different tradesmen in the town. Such a case might embarrass the local authority, because if they were then to take up the question a large body of traders might say, "You are acting in a manner hostile to us." That would be a pity. Therefore I accept the compromise, proposed originally by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. W. Pearce), that the words "or otherwise" should come out. In the state of things which I contemplate as possible, but not likely, the local authority might not care themselves to act, but under this Clause, with the words "or otherwise" eliminated, it would be open to the local authority to go to the Home Office and ask for an impartial umpire to come down. That is a reasonable compromise, and on behalf of my hon. Friends I shall be glad to give it my support.

The speech we have just heard would not have been delivered if the right hon. Gentleman had tried to get an early closing day amongst traders in various districts. If he had made that attempt he would have found that very often it is first suggested by some trader, and the very fact that a particular trader has suggested it means that the whole proposal will be upset. Over and over again when I have tried amongst pharmacists to arrange for an early closing day the great difficulty has been, "This has emanated from so-and-so." Local authorities have had power to make early closing orders since 1904. Why have they not been made? What you are doing now is simply telling local authorities that, instead of using the powers which they have had since 1904 and making their orders, they shall go to the Home Office and ask for an inquiry to be made in their own districts as to whether the orders shall be made. Unless a representation comes from the local authority nothing is to be done by way of stimulating early closing in a particular district. The whole value of this Clause is destroyed if you do not give someone other than the local authority the right to suggest that the machinery should be put in motion. It is suggested that you should leave it to individual traders. But in the past local jealousy has been the cause of preventing steps being taken. If two or three or more members of a particular trade go to a local authority and say, "We want a closing order," they can make it now. The point is, why will not the local authority make the order? The right hon. Gentleman says that they will not do it because they do not want to interfere in local jealousies. But under the present proposal they have to take action by going to the central authority, and I think they are no more likely to go to the central authority than they are to make orders. The suggestion of the Under-Secretary with reference to an association of traders would be an extremely valuable provision. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who all along have said, and I frankly accept their statement, that they are anxious for shopkeepers to have an early closing day, at any rate to allow the insertion of words enabling the central authority to be moved by a recognised association of traders in a particular locality.

I wish to make a suggestion with a view to getting agreement between the two sides. The objection to the Clause is that it will give an opening for busybodies to interfere, and I understand that the suggested Amendment of the Government is open to the same objection. I would, therefore, suggest that instead of the words "or otherwise" there should be inserted the words "or employers and assistants."

What employers?

Obviously the employers who are interested in the closing order.

One employer and one assistant, or how many?

I purposely left it open in order not to draw it too close for acceptance. I am not particular as to the number. The only point is that if employers and assistants are acting together they ought to be regarded as acting bonâ fide on behalf of the class.

I desire to support the suggestion just made. I agree with what has been said as to the inability at present to secure the closing of shops. We must face the fact that the present system has failed, and shops are not shut. It is the unanimous desire of the House to pass a Bill which will have a practical result. I believe that if we remain as we are, with the provisions of the old Act, we shall not secure that practical result, and shops will not be closed. I think the Government might accept some such compromise as that just made. It is difficult on the spur of the moment to suggest words to carry out the principle. But in most towns there are bodies representing the traders and the shop assistants, and I should be perfectly satisfied personally if those two bodies had power to invite such an inquiry as is suggested.

If there be this great anxiety on the part either of employers or of assistants in a certain town for early closing, nothing is easier than for them to represent their desire to their own local authority, and the local authority can then take action. What seems intolerable is that associations from outside, even such as those suggested by the Under-Secretary, should be allowed to come in, and, usurping the place of the local authority, approach the Home Office. This objection is by no means confined to this side of the House. I remember that upstairs the hon. Member for Stepney was very much annoyed about this Clause. He said:—

"If this Bill was to be worked through a Government Department it would break down. It would only be successful as far as the local authority took it up and made it a success."

If the local authorities are to be stimulated by the activity of the Shop Assistants Union and the Early Closing Associations, which were two of those mentioned upstairs—and no doubt there are others on the employers' side—then I do say a great deal of power has been taken away from the local authority which ought to reside in it. I find myself also in agreement with what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney when he said he was much concerned with the attitude that the Government have taken up in regard to the local authorities. Here, he said, was a Liberal Government in power——

Did I ever say that?

I beg the hon. Member's pardon, I mean the Member for Bethnal Green. The hon. Member finally said—and here a great many of us find ourselves in agreement with him—

"To send down a paid official from Whitehall to undertake a roving inquiry independent, of the local people, is to go against the whole principle of representative government."

Those then really are the grounds on which we base our desire to take out the words "or otherwise." The First Lord of the Admiralty has made the position today clearer than it was made upstairs.

When?

Then it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton. In any case it has been made clearer than upstairs in showing us the kind of gentleman who is to be sent down to undertake the local inquiry—if local inquiry there is to be. But leaving the question of a local inquiry to one side, the real charge and the grave objection we have to this is that this power is taken away perfectly obviously, from the local authority and put into the hands of any mere busybody who may be interested—or perhaps not altogether disinterested in the matter. I am sorry I cannot accept the invitation of the Under-Secretary to accept his words. I think the words, "or otherwise," must come out.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's pointed out that there may be cases in which the local authority may hesitate to take action that would secure the shorter hours. I think the House is generally agreed that it is desirable, so far as possible, to have the holiday; consequently if the words "or otherwise" be left out——

This is not the half-holiday. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has nothing to do with it."]

If other words can be introduced and some provision made for alternative machinery to secure the visit of this Government representative, both traders and assistants would be benefited, and so I think that we ought to try to find words to express that desire.

If it is not possible to accept the particular words in the Bill which may be too vague or wide, it should be possible to come to some agreement and a decision which would add some other meaning than to act only by the local authority. I have had in mind, during the course of the discussion, a particular instance in East London. That instance does not stand alone. It very often happens that the members of a small local authority feel a peculiar hesitation to take the first action in these matters. Perhaps as much as a fourth or a fifth of the local authority belong to one particular trade, and these gentlemen do not like to act; that is, to take the first step in acting. Even if it comes to a voluntary census, it may almost amount to the same thing. A voluntary census was undertaken in this particular district of East London to apply the Act of 1904. There was very great difficulty in getting any unanimity among the shopkeepers as to the line of action to be taken, although almost every individual shopkeeper when asked individually wished that some action should be taken. They had discussed it one with another, but one wanted one time and one another, and in consequence it was not possible for all to agree. Hence it was impossible to get common action upon which to go to the local authority. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End is possibly quite familiar with the difficulties in a case like that. We do not want to have machinery that no one can put in motion. We want to be able to act in those cases where the local authority hesitate to act.

In this matter I leave myself in the hands of the House, but I do venture to say this really is a serious matter. This proposal originated in the following way: when I received the various deputations, of which an account is to be found in this book—in the process of that long business—we found a unanimous opinion as to the failure of the Act of 1904, firstly, because of the lack of anyone outside to start the process, while, second only to that fact, was the fact that in a good many places the local authority had been quite unsympathetic. In some cases they hesitated for reasons which my hon. Friend has put forward. In other cases they were not sympathetic to early closing. A case was brought before me by the Hairdressers' Association which seemed to me to touch the high-water mark of disability. I do not propose to mention the name of the town because I have not got the actual references. But there were nineteen hairdressers in it, and sixteen agreed upon an Early Closing Order. They asked the local authority to take the necessary steps to make it effective. The local authority told them that they did not consider a case had been made out—that there was not sufficient public demand. That meant that the sixteen hairdressers were forced to continue at the hours the three insisted upon working. I am bound to say, without wishing to cast any slur upon our local authorities in the matter, that early closing should be helped in every way, and ought to be free from any trammels. It really is a matter of very great importance, but, as I say, I am in the hands of the House. But perhaps I might venture to suggest this alternative, following on the suggestion which came from below the Gangway, and that is that in Sub-section (1), the words "or otherwise" should be cut out, and that the following words might be inserted: "on a joint representation from a substantial number of occupiers and shop assistants."

In the locality?

Yes.

Why not make it a majority instead of a substantial number?

It is altogether a matter for inquiry.

I hope the House will come to an agreement. It is quite obvious that there are difficulties in the way of setting up a scheme of early closing which are not overcome by the present Acts and as the local authority at the present time can act it does seem as though the existence of a local authority is not sufficient. Some of my hon. Friends on this side suggest that you might obtain security by a majority, or something of that kind, and that some confidence must be put in the discretion which is to be exercised by the Secretary of State. I cannot conceive myself that the Secretary of State will lightly interfere with the action of the local authority and with what is purely a local matter, or that he will act on any other grounds. I think the words the right hon. Gentleman has suggested meet the difficulties of the case.

I hope the House will agree to what is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I know the difficulty of trying to put the Act of 1904 into operation. Individual members of the local authority might be agreed, but it was the greatest difficulty to get them together to deal with this matter.

The expression "locality" means nothing as a Parliamentary phrase. I presume the right hon. Gentleman means the local government area or the local authority area.

With this necessary alteration, I should gladly support the Amendment. There is only one thing I would like to add, and that is, I think, the right hon. Gentleman might consider how we are going to interpret the word "substantial." It must not, of course, be vexatious. I understand the interpretation will be made by the Secretary of State. That being so, if we could get a scientific definition I should be happy. If we could have that all of us would gladly accept the Amendment.

How do you propose to deal with London? The local authority under this Bill is the London County Council, and it would be very difficult to ascertain the views of the shopkeepers in so great an area. Why not make the borough councils the local authority?

I think my hon. Friend will find that the word "substantial" is a term that can be construed without very much difficulty. If the Secretary of State were to grant an inquiry without having substantial support, a writ of prohibition might be granted to prevent him holding such an inquiry. I think, on the whole, although perhaps we should prefer a more exact expression, such as one-third, I would not press the matter if the House takes the word substantial. I really think that does meet the difficulty that will arise, and I think that it is very rarely that a local authority would not respond to the wishes of a sufficient number of ratepayers. There may be isolated cases here and there. I should advise my hon. Friends to accept the words of the right hon. Gentleman.

In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to leave out the Clause.

I beg to move, to leave out Clause 29.

4.0 P.M.

My argument is that this Clause provides an entirely unnecessary loophole of exemption from the early closing provisions. It is quite a mistake to suppose that we are making early closing compulsory for all shops. When the House looks at the exemptions in the Second Schedule dealing with the provisions as to early closing, they will see it is unnecessary to have this third exemption in Clause 29. Clause 29 provides that in the event of a ship entering port on an early closing day anyone may get exemption so long as they are asked to supply necessaries for the ship "on her arrival at or before her departure from" the port. I suppose that means, in plain English, that anyone in a seaport town who goes into a shop and says, "I want something which is necessary for a ship," is entitled to get it and that that shop is entitled to keep open on the early closing day for the purpose of providing those necessaries. What possible check can you have in practice in a district of that sort? A man goes into a shop, and says, "I want something for a ship." The Clause says it must be for a ship before her departure from a port. Who is likely to go for the necessaries after she has gone? I do not see the value of the words "before her departure." If it said, "immediately before her departure" it would be better. I suppose that what was in the minds of the draftsmen was that you might have a ship getting into Cardiff early on the closing day and going out before the early closing day was over, but one answers that by saying that if the ship is there, it will be before her departure. Apart from that, what is the good of enacting exemptions such as these? Let the House see what anybody may get. There is intoxicating liquors. I do not suggest they would be wanted for the ship. Exemption is given for the sale of refreshments, including the business carried on at the railway refreshment room, for the sale of motor, cycle, and aircraft supplies and accessories, newspapers and periodicals, meat, fish, milk, cream, bread, confectionery, fruit, vegetables, flowers and other articles of a perishable nature. All these things are outside the present compulsory early closing day provisions and anybody may obtain these whether they want them for a ship or not. Why you want to throw an obligation on the shopowner in a seaport to say, "I cannot supply you unless you assure me that what you ask for is necessary for the ship," I do not know. The provision is quite unnecessary; it is another loophole to enable people who want to take advantage of their law-abiding competitors to escape the obligation of the early closing day. Seeing that the Second Schedule is unfortunately so wide, I ask the House to say there is no need for this extra exemption.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

Now that the Bill has shrunken from its original dimensions to such a very small size, I am bound to say that the dangers against which this provision was designed to guard are very remote, and only very peculiar circumstances would call them into existence. I do not think the provision can now be said to be practically necessary, and after the speech of my hon. Friend, which I think was very convincing and quite well-founded, if it is the will of the House I shall be prepared to accept the Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that he is now First Lord of the Admiralty. There are other things required for the sea than those mentioned in the Schedule. Ships want stores. What the Clause is wanted for now is the case of a ship which comes into a port on an early closing Saturday, let us say a coasting vessel, she wants oil for her lights and cordage to replace that which has been carried away, and ship's stores of that kind. They may find every shop closed, and the vessel may have to lie in port till Monday morning and thus lose part of her voyage, because the lack of stores prevents her from proceeding. This is a serious matter for the sea-coast, but a small matter from the general point of view of the Bill. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that the ways of the sea are not the ways of the land. Tide and time wait for no man. Considerations of that kind should be taken into account in order to make it a practical measure, so that it will not prevent the shops supplying the smaller necessaries required for ships. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to stand by the decision of the Committee and not give way to what seems to be very weak and unnecessary sentiment in the matter.

Without improving on the romantic eloquence of the hon. Gentleman I want to make a practical suggestion that the First Lord should keep the Clause in and see in another place whether it can be amended so as to provide for an exceptional case. There is a grave danger in taking it out altogether, though I agree generally with the arguments of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

To give a practical instance, if a fleet of smacks comes in on a weekly half-holiday and wants to purchase gear the whole fleet is held up for a day, and if it is a Saturday they are held up till some time on Monday morning, which may be a very serious matter.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "bazaar" ["lawfully held or any bazaar"], to insert the words "or other sale of effects."

There are sales for charitable purposes which are not necessarily bazaars, and it seems to me that any sale of effects for a charitable purpose ought to be left out of the Bill.

I should like to have an opportunity of considering the Amendment. I will give instructions to have it considered in another place.

There is a very important matter raised by this Clause, and it is one to which the House ought to give some consideration. The Clause proposes to exclude parishes with a population of less than a thousand from the operation of this Bill. The conditions in rural districts as to shops and the employment of shop assistants are different from those in the towns. A great number of shopkeepers do not employ any assistants at all. It was considered desirable in the Committee that this provision should be retained in the Bill, and now the right hon. Gentleman moves to leave it out. That is the course which he took with respect to the Irish Clause, and I raised no objection to what was done in that case. He has actually strengthened the Irish provisions. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to state his reasons for proposing to leave out this Clause. It appears to me that if the reasons in support of the Clause were right when the Bill was before the Committee, they would operate quite as much when the Bill is before the House on Report, and I would like to know what has induced him to ask us to reject the Clause now. On what principle does he propose to include the whole of the rural districts? On account of the short notice that has been given of this Amendment, there has not been time to hear anything whatever from the country districts on the matter. We come down to the House to-day and find a number of Amendments on the Paper, and many of us know very little of their general effect. If we are in that position with respect to the Amendments, how can we expect people outside to know what the Government propose to do? I can assure the right hon Gentleman that he would have heard a great deal from the rural districts in regard to this matter if it had been known that they were to be included, because the Bill is entirely inapplicable to them.

I desire to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gretton). I am sure it was not realised in villages that this Bill was intended to apply to every village. We all know that it cannot be applied there in the same way as in the towns. It seems to me that it would be most unfair to include rural parishes in this Bill without giving the people interested some opportunity of knowing how they are to be affected in the matter. It is a matter of general knowledge that not merely are the conditions healthier in the country districts, but that there is nothing like the same amount of strain by reason of continuous work in shops as you find in urban places. There was a proviso in the Clause as it originally stood providing for cases where there was anything in the way of competition between shopkeepers in a village and in a neighbouring town. Subject to that proviso, it seems to me that you have all you require in order to prevent the defeating of the purposes of the Bill. I feel sure that strong feeling will be expressed hereafter by the people of the villages if they are included in the Bill.

(who was indistinctly heard): I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. The Home Secretary ought to bear in mind that there are many towns or villages in the country where the population does not exceed 1,000, but which, nevertheless, are shopping centres for large rural areas. In these small places there are large numbers of assistants who would be affected if these areas were excluded. I think that the assistants of shopkeepers in the country are just as entitled to a weekly half-holiday as the people who have the good fortune or the misfortune to live in a large centre of population. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who spoke against the Amendment had that before his mind, and I trust that the House will accept the proposal.

In the last Bill, in which we had the sixty hours' limit, of course it was necessary that this should not apply to rural districts, but now that there is only the question of the half-holiday, and that the half-holiday is expressed in a Clause which gives a power of contracting out, I cannot see that it is really worth while to have exemption for these rural districts, and I hope that the House will adhere to the proposal. The existing Shop Hours Acts are in force in all the small villages, and this is only an addition to that.

This is a case where power ought to be retained of making exemptions in special cases, and I do not see that that is done under the Bill. Here, again, I agree that it would not be wise to exempt from the limited provisions of the Bill the rural and smaller parishes under this Clause, but why should not the Secretary of State have power to exclude when special circumstances exist? I should like to see this Clause inserted. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could object to that. The power could be exercised in that way, and I think it ought to be retained.

I hope that the Home Secretary will not reinstate this. If for no other reason than that if he puts this in the Bill you take outside its provisions all the shop assistants in the village. It may be said that there are not many shops, but there certainly will be a number of public-houses. The assistants are knocked out, and I am just as anxious for the assistant of the village public-house to have his half-day as anyone else.

It does not affect the assistants.

I hope that I am wrong, but as I read this Bill it would mean that none of the provisions of the Act would apply to a rural parish. I think we must delete this. If the shopkeepers in the village do not want the early closing day to apply, then, unfortunately, they have got enough exemption in the Act to enable them to contract out.

It does appear to me that the House is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Under Schedule 2, how many shops will remain in these small places that will not be exempt already from the weekly half-holiday? Unless hon. Members opposite wish to take away the benefits of the Act entirely from these persons there is no point to be served at all by this Amendment. The sale of intoxicating liquors, refreshments, newspapers, periodicals, tobacco, confectionery, etc., are to be dealt with, and there will not be many shops left in the villages to be affected. But even if a little hardship is inflicted on a very few people, I think the right hon. Gentleman will be very well advised to leave things as they are.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will retain power in the Home Office?