§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [22nd November] on Consideration of the Bill, is amended (by the Standing Committee).
§ Which Amendment was—
§ "In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'subsequently at such intervals,' and insert the words 'and each year following."—(Sir George Doughty)—instead therfore.
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part f the Bill."
§ MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.)as a point f order stated that they had been assured that this Bill was not coming on. He moved the adjournment of the debate, which he said had been sprung upon the House, This was a most important Bill of a very far-reaching and revolutionary character. It was not 887 alone the large manufacturers who were called upon to give a return of their production and wages, but it included the lowest and the smallest, and it involved a penalty such as he ventured to say there was not a precedent for in any other Act of Parliament. A man who employed a couple or three men to do little repairs on his premises, in ease he did not give a proper return of the wages or the amount which he had expended on purchasing material, was liable to a penalty.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not in order in making a Motion for the adjourment to discuss the Bill. He must confine himself to discussing the Motion for adjournment.
§ MR. MYERsaid it was for the purpose of supporting the adjournment that he was referring to the effect of the Bill. Of course he would submit to the ruling of Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he contended that he was perfectly in order in pointing out his reasons for moving the adjournment of the debate. The Bill inflicted a penalty of a magnitude almost equivalent to capital punishment on these small manufacturers and owners of small businesses, and in his opinion the Bill was part and parcel of a scheme of collectivism and possibly socialism.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member must not discuss the Bill in this way. He was entitled to argue that the importance of the Bill was such that it could not now be discussed with advantage, but he must not go into matters of detail as to the provisions of the Bill.
§ MR. CREMERseconded the Motion, as he thought they had good grounds for postponing the discussion. No timely notice had been given to the House for the proper consideration of this measure, or for the consideration of the Amendments on the Paper, of which there were no less than forty-eight, many of them of a vital character. Many of thorn, moreover, were not proposed by the Opposition, because eighteen of 888 them had been put down by the Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and in addition six Amendments had been given notice of by the Minister in charge of the Bill. He thought it was too bad at that late hour to bring the Bill forward and call upon the House seriously to consider a measure of this inquisitorial character when everybody expected to get away. The Whip circulated that morning contained no intimation that the consideration of the Bill would be resumed, and he understood that several hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper had gone away, as some kind of assurance that the Bill would not come on that afternoon had been given. He thought, therefore, they were justified in asking that the Bill should be postponed, and that it should be brought on at a reasonable hour.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Myer.)
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Lloyd-George, Carnarvon Boroughs)trusted that the Motion would not be pressed. It was the second dilatory Motion made from the Ministerial side of the House that day, and the consequence was that a good deal of time had been wasted. He was sure, however, that it was not the intention of his hon. friend to waste the time of the House. His hon. friend sat on the Committee, but he did not recollect that he passed a single criticism on the Bill, and that was an opportunity of which he might have availed himself had he objected to the measure. Although the Amendments were forty-eight in number they were not so formidable as they looked, and most of the Amendments he had put down were agreed to by the opponents of the Bill.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, S.)said that if, as stated by an old and respected Member of the House, there had been an understanding that the Bill should not be proceeded with that afternoon, and if in consequence of that hon. Members with Amendments on the Paper had gone away, the proposal to go on with the debate was a serious one.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEintimated that if such were the case he could not proceed. But he was not aware of any such understanding.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)entered a protest on behalf of the hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who had ventured to disobey the "muzzling order." It was exceedingly hard, he said, on a well-disciplined House like that which the Government led, that when one or two Members ventured to make a protest about particular items in a Bill, they should be treated in a very severe way by the right hon. Gentleman. He made his protest in the name of liberty of debate, and freedom of discussion. Hon. Members on the other side of the House who differed from the
§ Government on particular issues should be allowed briefly to express their views without being sat upon.
§ MR. MYERasked leave to withdraw the Motion, as there might be an opportunity of raising the matter on the Third Reading.
§ Leave being refused,
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 16; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 498.)
891| AYES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Cremer, William Randal | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Wortely, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W | Liddell, Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Myer, Horatio | Mr. T. L. Corbett and Sir |
| Craig, Capt. James(Down, E.) | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Frederick Banbury. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Alden, Percy | Collins, Sir Wm. S. (J. Pancras, W | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Henry, Charles S. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Courthope, G. Lloyd | Higham, John Sharp |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hills, J. W. |
| Barlow,John Emmott (Somerset | Crean, Eugene | Hogan, Michael |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Crombie, John William | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Barnard, E. B. | Crooks, William | Hudson, Walter |
| Barnes, G. N. | Dalziel, James Henry | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Delany, William | Jackson, R. S. |
| Beaumont, Hn. W.C. B.(Hexh'm | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.) | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Joyce, Michael |
| Billson, Alfred | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Boland, John | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Erskine, David C. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Lough, Thomas |
| Brace, William | Evans, Samuel T. | Lundon, W. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Everett, R. Lacey | Lynch, H. B. |
| Brigg, John | Farrell, James Patrick | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Fenwick, Charles | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Bryce. J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Ffrench, Peter | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Findlay, Alexander | M'Callum, John M. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Crae, George |
| Byles, William Pollard | Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Kean, John |
| Cairns, Thomas | Gilhooly, James | M'Killop, W. |
| Cameron, Robert | Ginnell, L. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Maddison, Frederick |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Grant, Corrie | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Gulland, John W. | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Meagher, Michael |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Meehan, Patrick A. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Halpin, J. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Clough, William | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Mooney, J. J. |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Morrell, Philip | Reddy, M. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Ure, Alexander |
| Murphy, John | Redmond, William (Clare) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Napier, T. B. | Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n | Wallace, Robert |
| Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r) | Rickett, J. Compton | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Ridsdale, E. A. | Wardle, George J. |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Watt, H. Anderson |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Russell, T. W. | Whitbread, Howard |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Sears, J. E. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Sheehy, David | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| O'Grady, J. | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wiles Thomas |
| O'Hare, Patrick | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Williamson, A. |
| O'Malley, William | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.) | Winfrey, R. |
| Paul, Herbert | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Younger, George |
| Pollard, Dr. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | |
| Price C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Sullivan, Donal | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Ridford, G. H. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Ridclifie) | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury) | Pease. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved an Amendment providing that the interval before the second and subsequent censuses should be determined by order made by the Board of Trade as soon as practicable after the taking of the first census and laid before both Houses of Parliament. He explained that the Amendment would meet suggestions made on the other side. It would give Parliament an opportunity of deciding after the first experiment what interval they would like. He thought it was undesirable to decide what interval should elapse before they knew how the first census had gone.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word 'intervals' and insert the words, 'such intervals as may be determined by an order made by the Board of Trade as soon as practicable after the taking of the first census and laid before both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ *MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)asked whether his Amendment standing on the Paper to make the intervals "of not less than five years," 892 ought not to come before the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade.
§ LORD R. CECILsuggested that his hon. friend's Amendment ought to be moved before that of the right hon. Gentleman. It was not at all contradictory to the words of the Government Amendment.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was some debate in Committee as to whether there should be an interval of one or five years. Both suggestions came from hon. Gentlemen opposite. By way of alternative he put forward the proposal he was now making, and it was absolutely inconsistent with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that having regard to the character of the previous debate the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Albans could not be moved before the Government Amendment as it was an alternative proposal.
§ *MR. CARLILEsaid in that case he would have to content himself with stating his objection to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, namely, that 893 at the present time the whole subject of the Bill was before Parliament. When, however, the President of the Board of Trade asked Parliament on a future occasion to fix the date of the next census the subject would not be fresh in the minds of hon. Members. In the United States the interval between these censuses was ten years, but he thought five years would be sufficient. If, however, the returns were to be made annually the right hon. Gentleman and his staff would be unable to grapple with the work, and as a result, instead of a complete and reliable production, they would have a hurried Return made from an ill-digested mass of documents. He did not wish to hinder the passage of the Bill, but he thought the House should decide now what the interval was to be, instead of leaving it to the President of the Board of Trade to decide from time to time.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGENot from time to time. That is the alternative. My suggestion is to decide once for all by Order what those intervals should be.
§ *MR. CARLILEsaid that by the time the first Returns were in the hands of Members they would have forgotten a great deal of what the Bill contained, and any suggestion that was then made would not meet with the intelligent consideration that it would receive at the present time, when the minds of hon. Members were concentrated upon the Bill. He suggested that it would be better to allow the House to decide now what the first interval at any rate should be.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)said the Amendment standing in his name to leave out the words "as may be prescribed" in Clause 3 was only a drafting Amendment which he would not move if the right hon. Gentleman thought it was unnecessary, but the words seemed to him to be a repetition.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment would make the sentence ungrammatical and would not permit the carrying out of the work.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGThen I shall not move the Amendment.
§ *MR. CHIOZZA MONEY (Paddington, N.)moved an Amendment providing that the particulars to be called for should include the capital employed. He said he was not quite sure whether these particulars might not be obtained under the permissive words at the end of the first sub-section of the clause, and which might be narrowly or widely interpreted according to the judgment of the President of the Board of Trade or the permanent officials. If he had an assurance that the words were covered by the sub-section he would not proceed with his Amendment. If not, he would like to point out that particulars as to capital employed were one of the most important details to be ascertained if they were to get a true idea of the progress of industry. In the United States these particulars were obtained, and were of great value. To some extent they could be ascertained in this country, owing to the limited liability system; therefore he did not think his Amendment would add much to the inquisitorial character of the Bill, and the gain would be very great.
§ MR. HILLS (Durham)seconded the Amendment. It was, he said, of enormous importance that they should know from time to time the amount of capital invested in home industries, and he did not think the Amendment would impose any additional burden on manufacturers.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, line 21, after the words 'relating to the,' to insert the words 'capital employed."—(Mr. Chiozza Money.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. In an experiment of this kind they must proceed very tentatively and not so as to alarm manufacturers. The Bill represented very largely a compromise between those who opposed it altogether and those who were anxious to see it passed, and he was bound, by the pledge he gave in Committee, to 895 oppose anything which would extend the operation of the Bill. He trusted, in order that the Bill might be got, hon. Gentlemen would not attempt to extend it. If they did the Bill would have to be dropped altogether.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given this intimation. He too hoped that the scope of the Bill would not be extended, because it was one of a very experimental character. Putting in the words "capital employed" would really give nothing, because were they to take the actual capital, some of which might have been lost, or were they to take the capital which might have increased? If it was to be worth anything some scientific valuation would be necessary. The words "capital employed" was an ambiguous phrase.
§ MR. MYERsaid that if his hon. friend knew all about limited liability companies he would be aware that the nominal capital did not in any way represent the capital value, and therefore the information his hon. friend desired would be absolutely valueless.
§ MR. CHIOZZA MONEYbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGmoved to leave out the words which prescribed that the particulars to be supplied should include the number of days on which work was carried on. He could see no great advantage to be derived by including these particulars. They would be misleading, because there were days on which the only work done was in making up or taking out fires; and in certain cases work began late on Sunday night. As they all desired to get the Bill through he had no desire to occupy time, though he could see serious trouble in the preparation of the forms.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTseconded the Amendment, and remarked that the Opposition had no desire to embarrass the Government, but only to get the Bill into workable shape.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words 'the number of days on which work was carried on."—(Captain Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEaccepted the assurances of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were anxious the Bill should pass, but he trusted this Amendment would not be pressed, because the information had to be got in order to ascertain the condition of trades in any particular year. Ofcourse, the number of days employed in attending merely to boilers and so forth would be taken into account.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGintimated that he would not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *MR. SMEATON,who had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after "employed" the words "the amount of wages paid," said he did not recollect that this question had been fully discussed in Grand Committee.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was discussed very fully, and as a result of the arrangement arrived at between both Parties it was decided to leave these words out.
§ *MR. SMEATONsaid there were in a subsequent clause words which showed that in order to get at the value the amounts paid to the contractors were taken into account, but there were hundreds of industries in which there were no contractors, and it was to them chiefly that his Amendment applied. After the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, however, he did not desire to move.
§ MR. WARDLE (Stockport)said he would move the Amendment. It seemed to him that to ascertain these particulars was a very easy and simple matter, and if it was necessary to know the number of days people were employed, surely it 897 was quite as necessary to know the amount paid in wages in order to get at the real state of an industry. The last census of wages taken in this country was in 1886.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to say it would be dealt with next year.
§ MR. WARDLEsaid if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to bring in another Bill dealing with this point he would not move this Amendment.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGmoved to leave out from the particulars to be returned "the power used and generated." His object was to elicit the view of the President of the Board of Trade as to the way in which the returns could be utilised if not only power generated but the same power used was returned. At present a very large number of manufacturers frequently employed power which was brought in from outside, and he could not see that much value would attach to a return unless these words were struck out and duplication thus avoided. He begged to move.
§ MR. LIDDELL (Down, W.)formally seconded.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words 'and the power used or generated."—(Captain Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that it was in order to prevent duplication that both terms were inserted in the Bill. They would have returns separately of power used and of power generated.
§ LORD BALCARRESasked what the answer would be about power used and power generated? Would it be as to the nature of the power or the quantity? Would the answer be gas, electric power, or steam, or would it be 5,000 or 10,000 horse-power?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEHorse-power and nature.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid it would be very difficult for a good many firms to say what their horse-power was. They might have machinery for 5,000 horse-power, although they might only use that power occasionally. He thought the number of days employed would also be a meaningless figure and the same with the power.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR E. CARSONmoved the insertion of words expressly excepting the amount of wages from the particulars to be supplied. The clause as it stood seemed to leave it open to the Board of Trade to make any inquisitorial examinations they pleased and add them to the form prescribed under the Bill.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, line 24, after the word 'nature' to insert the words 'except the amount of wages."—(Sir E. Carson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid if the right hon. Gentleman pressed these words he would not resist his Amendment. A census of wages could not be taken under the Bill, and the Government were not going to wait for the census under this Bill for a census of wages. By another Bill they would take one earlier.
§ MR. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars)said that it was twenty-one years since the last wages census was taken, and it was not satisfactory to have such a census at these long intervals instead of, under this Bill, probably every two or three years.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, as a census of wages could not be taken under the Bill, he had not thought it necessary to put in words to make it clear that it could not be done, but he did not object to the Amendment.
§ *MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid the supposed objections to inquiries about wages were over-rated. In 1886 the Board of Trade conducted a wages census on a voluntary basis and fully 75 per cent. of the firms applied to for particulars returned their forms. This showed how exaggerated were the objections to compulsory inquiries.
§ *MR. CARLILEsaid the amount of wages could be of no possible value. If the total amount of the wages was embodied, it could be no guide to the Board of Trade whatever. Supposing a railway company gave out work to contractors, it was possible that both the railway company and the contractors would make returns for the same work, and the result would be a duplication of returns which would be misleading. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment the duplication would be avoided.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the words as they stood in the clause were really to prevent duplication in cases where part of the work was let out. If they were to have a Return from a manufacturer and another from a sub-contractor, that would give the appearance of a greater volume of trade than the facts warranted.
§ MR. CARLILEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendments proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 17, to leave out sub-section (d)."
§ "In page 2, line 27, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'upon receiving notice in writing from the Board of Trade to that effect."
§ "In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words so far as practicable."—(Mr. Carlile.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ MR. SMEATONmoved an Amendment to Clause 4 to provide that a separate summary of statistics for Scotland should be presented with the Report to Parliament. When the Bill was before the Committee upstairs a special concession was made that the Report to Parliament should contain a separate statement of the 900 statistics obtained in Ireland. He thought Scotland had an equally good claim to the same concession, for there were some industries which were peculiar to the country, notably Jute manufactures and fine sewing cotton. He had another reason for his Amendment. He believed that the summary would show that Scotland contributed a larger proportion of the total production of the United Kingdom that was generally understood: and that, therefore, Scotland should obtain better terms from the Exchequer than she at present enjoyed.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 40, after the word 'Ireland,' to insert the words 'and a similar separate statement for Scotland."—(Mr. Smeaton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEaccepted the Amendment.
LORD BALCAERESasked whether the inclusion in the report of a separate statement in respect of Scotland would add £2,000 or £3,000 to the cost.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEI should not think it will cost very much.
§ *MR. CARLILEmoved to leave out sub-section (3) of Clause 5 which provided that the Board of Trade, if they thought fit, might arrange to transfer to other Departments "any of their powers and duties under this Act as respects any particular industries or class of industries," and further that the Board might "delegate to a Committee containing representatives of the Departments concerned all or any of their powers and duties" in relation to statistical Returns of production. It seemed to him to be most undesirable that this power of delegation should be conferred on the Board of Trade. The success of the census would depend on the confidence which the people of the country had in the absolute secrecy of the Board of Trade in dealing with the Returns, and that confidence would be very much lessened, if not absolutely destroyed, if the Returns were 901 to be furnished partly to one Department and partly to another.
§ LORD R. CECILseconded the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 3, line 12, to leave out sub-section (3)—(Mr. Carlile.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEaccepted the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 3, line 22, at the end, to add, 'Provided that the Board of Trade shall not transfer its power, to make rules under Section 8."—(Mr. Smeaton.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)moved to omit the word "individual" from Clause 6. He thought it was the intention of the Government that no specific Return should be divulged, although it would, of course, be necessary to give the results of the Returns in combination for the information of the House and the public. If they did not insert the words of the Amendment some person might argue that the aggregate in a trade might be published without the written consent of the person making the Returns, because it was not an individual Return.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 3, line 23, after the word 'individual' to insert the words 'or collective."—(Sir E. Carson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'individual' stand part of the Bill."
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was afraid that that would be a rather dangerous Amendment. After all, the object of the Bill was to obtain information, and if no answer was made by any firm which 902 could be published, the object of the measure would be defeated.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he moved his next Amendment to meet a request which had been made in Committee upstairs.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 3, line 26, to leave out the words 'persons making the Return,' and insert the words 'owner for the time being of the undertaking in relation to which the Return or answer was made or given."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 3, lines 35, and 36, to leave out the words 'makes any disclosures,' and insert the word 'Acts."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 3, line 36, after the word disclosures,' to insert the words 'or use aforesaid."—(Mr. Carlile.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not accept this Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert, (2) 'For the purposes of this Act the expression 'individual Return' shall include any Return or Returns made by any one person, partnership, company, or association of persons and, where any trade or business is carried on by any company in whole or in part by means of any subsidiary company or companies, any aggregate of two or more returns made respectively by such company and subsidiary company or companies. In this section a company shall be deemed to be a subsidiary company when not less than three-fourths of its ordinary share capital is held by another company. (3) When any trade or business is carried on by such a small number of persons or companies that if Returns were published for any particular district, county, or part of the United Kingdom, it would be possible by inspection of such Returns to obtain information as to individual Returns, then no Returns shall be published for any such district, county, or part of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Carlile.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
903§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had an Amendment of which he had given notice which would accomplish the same object as that of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the object of the Bill was not to get information in regard to any individual business, but to obtain a national balance sheet. Therefore he moved the Amendment to which he had referred.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert the words, 'Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade any trade or business is carried on by any company in whole or in part by means of any one or more subsidiary companies, any aggregate of two or more Returns relating to the trade or business so carried on shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as an individual Return. A company shall be treated as subsidiary to another company for the purposes of this provision if not less than three-fourths of its ordinary share capital is held by that other company."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid he understood that in lieu of the words put down by the hon. Member for Thanet, the President of the Board of Trade proposed to move another Amendment.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was so. He proposed to move that anyone communicating information derived from these census Returns without lawful authority, should be liable to two years imprisonment, or to a fine.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert the words 'if any person having possession of any information which to his knowledge has been disclosed in contravention of the provisions of this section, publishes or communicates to any other person any such information, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both imprisonment and a fine."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
904§ SIR E. CARSONthought that the House should have full opportunity of considering this Amendment, and the effect of it, and he hoped that the matter would be re-considered before the Report stage.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to say that the words would be re-considered before the Report stage.
§ LORD BALCARRESmoved in Clause 8 (power of Board of Trade to make rules) to leave out sub-section (b) for the purpose of asking the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement as to the exemption of small businesses. As the clause at present stood anybody who repaired a gas pipe or who did any other trifling work of repair would have to give particulars to the Government. The schedules were all embracing, and the powers of the Board of Trade were very far-reaching indeed. In the United States they expressly stated in their census of production that it was for wholesale businesses and not for retail businesses. In the United States there were, more-over, numerous exemptions which included blacksmiths, wheelwrights, boot and shoemakers, carpenters, and other shops and works. In fact everything which was not of the nature of a retail business was excluded. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would make a general statement of policy in regard to the exemption of small businesses, as at present the clause was most objectionable in regard to them.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 4, line 21, to leave out sub-section (b)."—(Lord Ba carres.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas sure the noble Lord moved this proposal with a view, not of pressing it to a division, but merely to obtain an explanation. It was perfectly clear that they must exempt very small traders. To impose this census on them would be very harassing and 905 expensive, and he did not think the result would be worth anything. He could not say now what were the particular classes which would be exempted. He would rather wait until he had the benefit of the advice of the advisory committees of experts and business men which he hoped to set up to assist the Board of Trade as to the general lines on which they ought to proceed. He hoped he should not be pressed for a declaration of policy at the present moment, because it would be imperfect.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not consider they could expect the right hon. Gentleman to make a general declaration of policy at that time nor did he think anyone could claim that he was not going the right way about this proposal, but he urged the necessity for drawing a wide distinction between the large manufacturers and employers and the small man who was struggling on his own behalf. His experience was that every day they were making it more difficult for the small man to go ahead, and, while this Bill would throw comparatively little trouble and expense upon the big man, there were many men with moderate businesses who could not keep their accounts in such a way as to give the Return asked for without adopting a new system. He hoped the line would be drawn in a very generous way.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendments proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 4, line 26, at the end, to insert '(d) All rules made in pursuance of this Act shall be laid before Parliament."—(Lord Balcarres.)
§ In page 4, line 28, after the word 'of' to insert the words 'and engaged in."—(Sir Albert Spicer.)
§ "In page 5, line 5, after the word 'thereof,' to insert the words 'or to be made acquainted with any information contained in any answer to any question put for the purposes of this Act."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD BALCARRES (on behalf of Sir Frederick Banbury)moved to leave 906 out Clause 10 (intervals for making Returns under 1 Edward VII., c. 21, Section 130). The clause repealed Section 190 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and he objected to a Board of Trade Bill being introduced which had the effect of repealing a Home Office Act. The section in question directed that the Home Office should take from employers Returns about employment not more than once a year, and not less than once in three years, and the Secretary of State determined what those periods should be. It was worse than legislation by reference. The Return of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was much more important than this Return of the Board of Trade. That was a Return which dealt largely with the employment of women and children. If the right hon. Gentleman settled on an Annual Return, well and good, because then the Secretary of State for the Home Department could continue demanding Annual Returns. He did not think the House ought to give to the Board of Trade the power to settle the intervals of this obligation and allow it to vary the obligation which had been so clearly laid down.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)said the effect of this sub-clause would be precisely what the noble Lord had stated, but the Return now collected by the Home Office was of limited value. The statistics at present collected by the Home Office, showing the age, sex, occupation, and number of persons employed, were of very small value to statisticians and others. The Return embraced something like a quarter of a million of separate factories and workshops and four millions of people, and the compilation and printing of the figures involved a great deal of expense. In the present year the Department had only been able to publish figures relating to 1901. The statistical branch of the Factory Department in the Home Office employed nineteen persons, and notwitstanding this staff and the money spent statistics were published which were too old to be of any use to anybody. It was very desirable to reduce where possible the enormous printing bill paid by the nation, and it had long been desired to make the publication of this Return at longer intervals. It would be absurd for the 907 Home Office to collect these figures at three year intervals and for the Board of Trade to collect the same figures perhaps at five year intervals. Under this clause the two Departments would collect similar figures and co-operate in the work so as to make the statistics comparable with each other. Each department would try to make the census correspond.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)said this clause would enormously alter the obligations resting on the occupiers of factories and workshops. If the change was made it would have the effect of a statutory rule. It was not to be made public in any way, and occupiers of factories and workshops would not know the Return which they would be required to make until some provision was made which would in some way make these directions public to those concerned.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the forms were always sent out from the Home Office; the initiative did not come from the employer, but from the Home Office.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid his objection was that the hon. Gentleman had taken this opportunity to discredit the value of Returns which had nothing to do with this Bill, and of which it would be impossible to make any use in the Board of Trade census. The whole speech of the hon. Member went to show that these Returns were of no use to anybody, that even he, who was a devotee of statistics, had never had occasion to look at them. He told the House also that these statistics were a most expensive document for the State, and that a staff of nineteen in number was employed to collect them. In fact, the whole trend of the speech of the hon. Member was such as to persuade him that, so far from enacting this law to keep this Return alive, what the hon. Member should have done was to have 908 brought in a short Bill abolishing the Return altogether. Inasmuch as this Bill added to the necessity of collecting other Returns of a similar nature in factories, workshops, and other places of employment, he should have thought it would have been some relief to have got rid of this particular Return. The real objection the noble Lord had in moving this Amendment was that the Bill sought to give power to an official of the Board of Trade to repeal all or any part of an Act of Parliament. They were continually crying out about legislation by reference, but this principle of allowing a man in a public office to do this sort of thing was the most vicious that he had ever heard of.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 5, line 35, after the word 'continues,' to insert the words 'and in respect of false returns and answers the offence shall be deemed to continue until a true return or answer has been made or given."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *MR. CARLILEsaid it did not seem to him to be a proper thing if there was a delay in getting information that the Board of Trade should have the power to go behind the backs of the owners or agents and get the information from the manager. It was because he thought that ought not to be done that he begged to move.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 6, line 5, to leave out paragraph (b), and insert—'the owner of every mine or quarry or his agent or manager duly authorised by him in that behalf."—(Mr. Carlile.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not think the House should accept this Amendment, because he had adopted these words from the Coal Mines Act.
§ *MR. CARLILEsubmitted that the Coal Mines Act might be wrong in this. They were bringing this procedure up to date, and he thought his words would be an improvement. The right hon. Gentleman had been so considerate to the Amendments he had moved that he hardly liked to press this, but he thought it was almost essential that some such words should be inserted.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would consider the point.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD R. CECILthought it would be unfair to require people like small builders or decorators—people who did a little repairing work or alterations, and who were not occupiers of factories or workshops in the ordinary acceptance of the term—to make this return.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 6, line 7, to leave out the words 'repair or decoration."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEI accept that.
§ Amendment agreed to.
MR. STUART WOETLEYmoved to omit subsection (d), in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining how he intended to provide in respect of the laying of gas and water pipes.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 6, to leave out sub-section (d.)"—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreplied that all they wanted was a general result. Those matters would have to be considered very carefully, and the point raised by the right hon. Member was one of these which would have to be considered.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)asked for information with regard to repairs.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEThere is an Amendment on that point.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD R. CECILmoved to leave out "or any prescribed works." The words, he said, were likely to cause discontent and remonstrance when the Bill came to be put in practice. The Government had decided it was necessary to run the risk of this discontent, but he felt that the House should not sanction more than was necessary to carry out the object the Government had in view. If the Government, however, were prepared to say the words were necessary he would not press his Amendment, but if they were not necessary to carry out their object then he hoped they would let the Amendment go through.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 6, line 13, to leave out the words, 'or any other prescribed works."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreplied that it was necessary to put the words in to cover possible cases which might arise. They were not so wide as they appeared, and it was not intended to cover everything under the sun but only matters of a kindred nature.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid that if the Government considered the words were necessary then he did not wish to press his Amendment.
§ MR. J. WARDhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way. The words were absolutely necessary.
§ LORD BALCARRESfailed to see why the Government required these extending 911 words. The point we already covered in the lines which stated "any place where steam, water, or natural power is used." The expression "workshops" meant places where "any manual labour was exercised by way of trade, and for the purposes of gain, the making of any article, or any part thereof, the altering, repairing, or finishing of any article." That seemed to him to cover nearly all the industries, and therefore he failed to see the object of the words contained in the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEappealed to the House to allow the Bill to pass Third Reading, in order that the Government might send it up to the Lords in time.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ LORD BALCARREShoped that the Bill would be reprinted as soon as possible.
§ MR. CREMERsaid he did not desire to divide the House upon the matter, but he wished to protest against the Bill. He did not think there were many Members who were particularly desirous that the Bill should pass into law. [Dissent.] Well, at any rate, that was his impression. He was still in the dark as to the practical advantages which would be derived from this Bill passing into law. He did not know it was necessary to put down an Amendment to a sub-section of a schedule to ensure that it would be discussed. What he wanted to say in reference to sub-section (e) was that, in common with many other principles of the Bill, it was absolutely unworkable. 912 For instance, there was not a West End shoemaker, he believed, who did not give out his work, and only a small number of tailors had their own workshops. The same thing applied in regard to cabinet-making in the East End of London. With regard to sub-section (c) of the schedule, did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that if he asked a jobbing builder or decorator to paint his rooms or hang paper on the walls it would have to be returned in the census? The Bill seemed to be essentially of an inquisitorial, objectionable, vexatious, and irritating character. He failed to see that any advantage could be derived from it. It was clear, however, that it would add to the army of officials, and the country was already sufficiently official-ridden. He would content himself with registering his protest against the Bill. He did not think it ought to be passed, and he doubted whether very many Members desired that it should be passed. He knew one large employer of labour who was a Member of the House, but un fortunately absent through illness, who had stated that he would give £1,400 a year rather than this Bill should become law. It would compel employers to engage more clerks and was altogether of a vexatious character. He would oppose the Third Reading, though he did not propose to divide the House.
§ Bill was read the third time, and passed.
§ Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
§ Adjourned at twenty-one minutes after Seven o'clock till Monday next.