By LESLIE ADRIAN I T is permissible to lobby members of
the House of Commons; but not, I fancy, Peers. Yet I am sorely tempted to do so. Next Tuesday they will be called upon to discuss the Committee stage of the Shops Bill : that is to say, they will be debating whether the closing hours for shops should be fixed compulsorily at not later than seven o'clock on weekdays; or perhaps even, as an amendment suggests, not later than six.
The Bill's ostensible object is to remove some of the anomalies in the present legislation. That the anomalies exist, any fool can see. Consider the position in which Mr. Martin Harding, joint owner of 'The Pepper Mill' in the Brompton Road, finds himself, running what in effect is a miniature 'supermarket,' and keeping it open for the convenience of customers till eight or nine on weekdays, and four on Sunday afternoon. Mr. Harding is allowed to sell tinned soups on Sun- days, but not the packaged variety; tinned spaghetti, but not dry pasta. If he wants to sell meat, it must be cooked—but the law does not specify for how long, so he could, if he wished, merely 'sear' steaks or cutlets for people to take away and cook properly at home.
There are endless examples of such anomalies. When the new Shops Bill was first debated in the Lords in November, Lord Mancroft mentioned one of them : that you can buy cooked tripe up to midnight, but not a packet of salt to go with it. There remains, too, the unending controversy over whether a kipper is a meal or merely a re- freshment. As Lord Mancroft said, such a ridicu- lous rigmarole has 'brought the law into disrepute, and enraged shoppers and shopkeepers alike.'
The obvious solution, therefore—or so you might have thought—would be to abolish the restrictions, and let Mr.' Harding and others sell What and when they want—provided, of course, that they obey the regulations concerning hygiene, employees' working hours, and so on. But this is not the Government's intention. So far from trying to encourage Mr. Harding and his 'Pepper Mill' in serving the community, it is actually going to prevent him from doing so, by refusing him permission to keep open after seven o'clock—or even, if the amendment is passed, after six.
The excuse that the Government has put for- ward is, 'the National Chamber of Trade tell us that most family businesses do not want the right to stay open as long as they choose.' But the National Chamber of Trade represents the owners of the medium-sized stores—precisely the people who have most to lose from rivals staying open in the evening. To accept their opinion is like taking the word of a Walrus, that Carpenters are the most humane of men.
The National Chamber of Trade, and the bulk of the people it represents, argue that employees must be protected against exploitation. Certainly! But why cannot they be protected simply by in- troducing stricter regulations about their working hours? As Lord Grantchester said in the Lords debate, 'Is it not time we stopped legislating for the so-called protection of adult citizens upon such a matter? A shopkeeper is there to study the needs of his customers, and if a shopkeeper were allowed to do so there would be greater flexibility in the closing hours of shops.'
Perhaps I should make it clear that I have no affection for 'the small man' as such. I know the damage that a proliferation of hucksters' shops, such as you see everywhere in French and Irish towns, can do to a country's economy. They are usually inefficient and dirty; we need shed no tears over their passing. To my mind there is no place for the small man in the retail business except where he can give individual quality— as in bakeries, restaurants, delicatessens, and shops running certain individual lines of goods : or where they can give service, as 'The Pepper Mill' does, which so many consumers need, by staying open late.
Nor have I any particular love for the self- service 'supermarkets.' But they have one un- deniable advantage. By reducing labour costs, and obtaining a bigger and quicker turnover, they are able to cut profit margins (if the trade ring allows; it does its best to prevent them). Also, if they are successful, they can establish a shift system, allowing them to stay open late without compelling employees to work long hours. if they can—good luck to them!
I hope this is not the expression of a merely selfish viewpoint. In my experience, more and more people are coming to need, and use, shops which stay open late (this, incidentally, was the verdict of the BBC's Panorama investigation on Monday evening). With women taking new jobs, and wives keeping their old jobs in growing num- bers, it is naturally difficult to get the shopping done during the day; and any legislation which makes it impossible to do it after working hours seems to me to be retrograde. After all, it is not as if the shop assistant still required the protection from exploitation which was required even twenty years ago: on the contrary, any shopkeeper who tries to sweat his labour is very soon left with no labour to sweat.
But we consumers have no channel of com- munication to make our views known in such cases; and the shops which try to give us special service are few. The shopkeepers who want the restrictions, on the -other hand, are many; and, through their trade association, powerful and clever : they appear to have deluded both the Gowers Committee and the present Government.
I would have expected that a few Peers might have been found to perform the function that the second House is traditionally expected to perform—scrutinise the proposed legislation with a critical eye and expose its weakness. But in the Second Reading of the Bill, only Lord Grant- chester spoke up on behalf of the consumer. I hope on Tuesday he will speak for us again; and, this time, not lack supporters.
* * *
I had intended this week to discuss some of the suggestions sent in by readers, many of which are excellent. But I feel that this subject of shop hours is important—and topical: so the sugges- tions will have to wait till next week.
Previous page
