HC Deb 03 August 1891 vol 356 cc1193-6

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments, as far as the Amendment, page 2, line 30, agreed to.

Page 2, line 30, after "nuisance," insert— And shall be otherwise kept in conformity with the regulations contained in section ninety-one, sub-section six, of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' the next Amendment, disagreed to.

Page 3, line 4, after "default," insert— (4.) This section shall not apply to any workshop or workplace to which 'The Public Health (London) Act, 1891,' applies, the next Amendment, agreed to.

Amendment, in page 3, after Clause 5, insert Clause A (Duty of county council as to inspection of workshops and enforcement of sanitation therein), the next Amendment, read a second time.

(10.9.) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS, Birmingham, E.)

I move that the House disagree with this new clause, which has reference to the power of County Councils to provide for the inspection of workshops and the enforcement of sanitation therein. The Bill provides for the inspection of workshops by the local sanitary Inspectors, and if the Sanitary Authorities should be remiss in performing their duties the Home Secretary is empowered, under Clause 1, to send Government Inspectors to do the work. By this new clause it is proposed that the unhappy occupier of premises used as a workshop shall be worried and harried by another set of Inspectors without default on his part. This would, in my opinion, be unreasonable and vexatious, and, therefore, I hope the House will not agree to the clause.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

(10.11.) MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

So far as I have been able to judge of the Debates on this Bill, the sympathies of the Home Secretary have throughout been on the side of the occupiers rather than with the unfortunate workpeople. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is that this clause gives another authority power to worry and harass the occupiers. Bat as I read it, this will only be done in case of default on the part of the Local Sanitary Authority. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that this Bill, as it stands, places the workshops in a less satisfactory condition as regards inspection than they were before the Bill was introduced. Certain classes of shops have been taken from under the control of the Home Office and placed under the Local Authority. I admit it is true that the Home Office may resume its power over them, but that will only be done in exceptional cases. We want that there shall be some authority over and above the Local Sanitary Authority to see that the latter does its duty. The Home Secretary must remember that his colleague the President of the Local Government Board has already inserted in his Public Health Bill a clause similar to this, giving the London County Council considerable power over the Local Sanitary Authorities, and if such a principle is to be applied to London, I cannot see why it should not also apply to County Councils throughout the Kingdom. I hope the House, sympathising with the unfortunate workers in these workshops, who will be in a worse position under this Bill than before its introduction, will agree to this-new clause.

(10.16.) The House divided:—Ayes. 66; Noes 45.—(Div. List, No. 414.)

Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 6, line 23, agreed to.

Amendment, in page 6, line 23, leave out "affected thereby on his or her application," and insert" so employed," disagreed to.

Page 9, leave out Clause 23, the next Amendment, agreed to.

Page 10, line 7, after "pound," insert— Provided always, that in the event of anyone who is engaged as an operative in any factory or workshop receiving such particulars, and subsequently disclosing the same with a fraudulent object or for the purpose of gain, whether they be furnished directly to him or to a fellow workman, he shall be liable for each offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, the next Amendment, read a second time.

(10.24.) SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

As regards this Amendment, it is regarded as an important one by the operatives. It springs out of the clause which entitles them to receive particulars of the work they are about to do. In the course of the discussion on it, it was pointed out that the information might be sold to a rival employer, and trade secrets thereby disclosed. It was suggested that persons disclosing information given under the power of the clause should be liable to a penalty, and the Lords' clause carries out that view. The operatives have no objection to it, but they think that a person who induces a man to disclose the information should also be liable to punishment; that the tempter should be punished as well as the tempted. The Amendment I intend to propose will secure that, and will provide a double defence for the employer. We are willing to accept the Lords' Amendment if thus amended.

Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment, In line 6, after the word "pounds," to insert the words "provided also that any one who shall solicit or procure a person so engaged in any factory to disclose such particulars with the object or purpose aforesaid, or shall pay or reward such person, or shall cause such person to be paid or rewarded for so disclosing such particulars, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable for each offence to a fine not exceeding £10."—(Sir H. James.)

(10.26.) MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I hope that the Government will assent to this Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

Agreed. I entirely assent to the principle that the briber as well as the bribed ought to be punished.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords,"—Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Ritchie, Sir Henry James, Mr. Sydney Buxton, and Mr. Jackson:—To withdraw immediately.

Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.