HC Deb 24 March 1908 vol 186 cc1336-47
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD (Leicester)

in rising to move "That the Special Order of the Secretary of State, dated the 26th day of December, 1907, allowing as regards laundries that separate departments of work may be treated as separate factories or workshops, be annulled," asked the House to give him their indulgence for a few minutes. On the 17th February, the Home Secretary laid on the Table of the House a statutory rule or Order numbered 1010, in which he made some exceptions under the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901 (Laundries). The object of the statutory Order was to make certain conditions, not ordinarily provided for by law, regarding the hours and conditions of employment in laundries, and the effect of it he would, if the House would permit him, try to show in as few sentences as possible was to create absolute chaos in the administration of the Factory Law so far as it related to hours in laundries. Under the present system the proprietor of a laundry might choose three absolutely different provisions as regarded hours. He might work the usual factory or workshop hours with a special variation of the Saturday half-holiday; he might work eleven and a half hours per day in one of three schemes beginning at 6, 7, or 8 a.m., and ending at 7, 8 or 9 p.m. respectively, with a set of complicated conditions attached; or if he gave up his right to overtime after sixty hours per week, he can work upon another scheme of hours. That was the law as it stood, but the right hon. Gentleman, not apparently satisfied with a law so complex that his own inspectors had reported time after time that it could not be put into operation, first simplified the law last year, but had now sanctioned another variation. The right hon. Gentleman he saw shook his head, but if he would turn to the annual report of the chief inspector for the year 1906 he would see that Miss Sadler reported— This juggling with forms and hours has rendered evasion of the Act extremely easy. I took, with the help of a colleague, quite four hours one day inquiring into the hours on a large laundry where there were five different sets or departments. Might he also refer him to the statement of another lady inspector. Miss Tracy in the same year reports— In the matter of hours the same old difficult in adequately checking still arises, although the tendency is towards shorter and earlier hours. …. The proposed alteration in the law affecting laundries is hailed with gladness by almost every manager, for they suffer almost equally with the workers in the present state of the law. So that the right hon. Gentleman's own inspectors had reported that it was practically impossible to administer a law so generous in its elasticity. The right hon. Gentleman had, moreover, had deputation after deputation from societies such as women's trade unions and the women's industrial council, begging him to cease that elasticity of administration so that some accurate system might take its place; but now the effect of this Statutory Order, for the annulment of which he asked the House to vote, would be to make the law more elastic. In a large laundry, according to some of the factory inspectors, there would be as many as five or six departments, and if this Statutory Order was permitted to become operative, each one of these five or six departments might constitute itself a separate laundry, and women might work in one one day and in another the next, and it would be absolutely impossible to keep the nominal check upon the extension of the hours of work. By shifting employees from one department to another each day, the regulations as to the hours of work might be evaded. The safeguards against this were altogether inadequate. He was engaged last year after the Laundries Bill went through in drafting a leaflet which was to be sent among laundry workers stating what the law actually was. He had associated with him three or four lawyers and traders and men who were accustomed to the administration of the Factory Law, and in consultation they found it impossible to draft a statement which was so simple and plain that they could hand it to laundry employees, so that they might be able to protect their own interests by knowing what the law was. There was another point to which he would like to refer. He would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the grand result of this Statutory Order would be to increase the number of hours of married women's work in factories. There was no industry in the country in which married women were employed in such large numbers as in laundries, and the latest figure showed that in London alone there were 27,204 married women employed as against 20,158 unmarried women, and women could work in London on Saturday up to nine o'clock. There was an agitation just now in regard to the sacredness of the family, and some of them were told that they had lifted their hands against the sacredness of the British family, and yet a Liberal Home Secretary came down to the House and asked it to sanction a Statutory Order which might have the effect of employing 27,204 married women on Saturday nights up to nine o'clock. It was idle to pretend that under any such system there could be proper factory inspection; it was preposterous in the extreme. They found the right hon. Gentleman the other day informing them in reply to a question he put, that he had actually granted 230 certificates under this Statutory Order already. It therefore appeared that 230 laundries had applied to be divided up in this preposterous manner, and the right hon. Gentleman had also said that three districts were not included in these figures. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to inform the House that in the case of every one of these requests personal inspection was resorted to before the certificates were issued, because it was a most extraordinary thing that the Factory Inspectors' Department could do so much work in regard to these laundries when they could leave so many thousand factories uninspected every year? And yet the Order implies that the inspectors should know from personal knowledge something about the laundry to which they were issuing their certificate. He ventured to say that these certificates which had been granted had been granted without investigation as to whether the circumstances of the laundry warranted the issue of a certificate or not. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that when his predecessor in office introduced a Factory Bill in 1900, the outstanding feature of that was what had long been known as the relay system, but this Statutory Order was a re-introduction of the relay system into the laundry. At that time the whole Labour Party and kindred organisations issued memoranda and suggested Amendments to the Conservative proposals of 1900, and all these atta ked the relay system which was re-established by the Bill, and that was why they heard no more of that measure, and yet by a Statutory Order, this abominable and objectionable relay system was being re-enacted under most unnecessary circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that in 1844 when that system existed an influential deputation of factory inspectors visited the Home Office and laid their views before it, and owing to the impossibility of inspecting under the relay system it was ultimately knocked on the head. This Statutory Order made it absolutely impossible for them to inspect accurately; it put a premium upon the illegal employment of women; it made it easier for employers illegally to extend the period beyond which women could be employed, and he hoped the House would support him in moving that it be annulled. He begged to move.

MR. JAMES PARKER (Halifax)

formally seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Special Order of the Secretary of State, dated the 26th day of December, 1907, allowing as regards laundries that separate departments of work may be treated as separate factories or workshops, be annulled."—(Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.)

*MR. GLADSTONE

hoped that the House would not annul the Order The hon Member had attacked him as if he had been guilty of some political enormity, and he had never heard anyone attacked by an hon. Member in this House under such circumstances in a more menacing aspect or greater strength of language and with a weaker case. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that an Order of this sort did require careful consideration, as it made exceptions under a particular clause in the Factory Act in regard to inspection, and he thought Parliament was entitled to understand why the exception had been made. The hon. Gentleman rose at that very late hour as if he had got the whole of the country at his back in condemning the Order, but he would tell the House what actually occurred in regard to it. As a matter of fact, this Order was published in the Gazette and had laid on the Table for the statutory time of forty days. It was sent to trade union headquarters according to the usual custom of the Home Office, so that the trade unions were fully apprised of its contents. The hon. Member himself knew about it, at all events he could have had information about it, and, as a matter of fact, only one communication against the Order reached the Home Office. That was from the Chairman of the Women's Trade Union, and it was dated 10th December. In reply to that letter, which raised perfectly legitimate points of criticism, he sent an answer which apparently was perfectly satisfactory, because no rejoinder was received, and he heard nothing more of opposition to the Order until he saw the hon. Member's notice on the Paper. Then the hon. Member came down and for a quarter of an hour spoke of him in a tone as if he had committed every crime under the sun. The laundry work of the country was carried out under conditions which the House would recognise as exceptional, so exceptional that Acts of Parliament had provided for special treatment. The laundry never worked to stock at all, and the work of each week had to be done in each week. It was received and sent out in each week. There were different processes as they all knew in connection with the work, one following another, and one process could not be commenced until the other was completed. It had to be done under great pressure from day to day, as hon. Members knew from the ordinary incidents of their own private lives. The washing had to go out at a certain time and come back at a certain time, and the work had to be done at high pressure. The result was that there was a fair demand for consideration in respect of the Rules which governed this matter, and it was quite reasonable to allow different periods of employment to be fixed for different departments of the work. He understood that the hon. Member made one or two objections, but first of all he brought against him the reports of two lady inspectors with regard to laundry work. But what did they refer to? They referred to the state of things which had existed under Section 103 of the Act of 1901 which was repealed by the Factory Act of last year and which undoubtedly did cause difficulty in the work of inspection.

MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

*MR. GLADSTONE

I have the Act of 1907 here, and it says that Section 103 is hereby repealed.

MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I was referring to the quotations I made from Miss Sadler and the other lady, in which no reference is made to that section.

*MR. GLADSTONE

That is for the very good reason that the Act of last year had not been passed.

MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD

It was not repealed then.

*MR. GLADSTONE

No, but the hon. Member quotes the state of things obtaining under a section which has been repealed. I have to deal with the conditions of things as they are now, and will be in the future. He agreed that great care had to be taken that no opportunity was given for the illegal extension of hours, but it was not true that inspectors would not know how many hours a particular woman was working, or that the provisions of the Act would be rendered nugatory. That was not so at all. All the newer laundries were constructed so that all the different processes could be carried out in one room. This arrangement was more convenient and far healthier, for the women employed. The Orders under the Act had hitherto provided that there must be structural separation, and it was objected that there was no such provision in this case. Care had however been taken to keep the premises in which the different processes were carried on so distinct that the inspectors could easily find out how long a particular woman or girl had been at work at a particular process. The new Order provided that each class of work was to be limited to one department; each department must be under separate and distinct management, and there must be somebody who was responsible for each department. Every such department must be carried on by separate and distinct persons so that no person might be employed first in one department and then in another. Further, and this was a most important point, the Order provided that there should be affixed to the walls a complete list of the persons employed in each department. These were the conditions so that the inspectors could come in and see how long a particular woman had been employed, and if the work was going on out of hours. If there was wrong employment they could run any case to ground. He had taken very great care when this Order was under consideration, and had consulted the factory inspectors, and talked it over with them in every detail, and he said now what he said before that the Chief Inspector of Factories did not think there was any danger in regard to it. If that was so, he maintained that having regard to the general convenience of those employed as well as those who employed them, this Order was perfectly justified on its merits. He had nothing more to add at the present moment except this. The hon. Member asked if all these individual cases had been investigated. He could not say definitely, but he had no doubt that all the laundries which had received certificates had been inspected and reported upon. He had no doubt about it in his own mind. If there was anything unsatisfactory in the working of the Order, it would be open to the Home Office to revoke the certificate. The possibility of the revoking of the certificate was, he thought, almost a sufficient guarantee that the provisions of the Order would not be abused. He could only repeat that they had given effect to the Act of Parliament and no one had hitherto taken any exception. Those well qualified persons to whom he had alluded were perfectly satisfied with his answer.

MR. H. J. TENNANT

No.

MR. GLADSTONE

said he did not know what his hon. friend meant. If they were not satisfied, perhaps he would explain why no further action was taken. He thought when questions were put to him and a perfectly definite answer was given, if nothing further was said for two or three months they might assume that people were satisfied, and that there was nothing that required further answer. He put it to the House at any rate that he was cleared in the matter. He had endeavoured to invite attention and criticism; attention and criticism had been given, and there was no further opposition until the hon. Member rose that night. Under these circumstances, he asked the House to support him in refusing to accept this Motion.

MR. H. J. TENNANT

said the reason he ventured to interpose was that the Women Trades Union League was not satisfied with the answer of the Home Secretary. This was a matter on which he and his right hon. friend Sir Charles Dilke and other Members had been agitating for the last ten or twelve years, and they were perfectly tired of trying to get the Government Department to take up the case. All these Orders issued under the sanction of Parliament were making inspection more and more difficult every day.

MR. GLADSTONE

This is the first Order I have made.

MR. H. J. TENNANT

said that this was an Order making each separate department of a factory a separate factory. Once they acknowledged that it was advisable to make separate Orders for different departments of one factory they made factory inspection extremely difficult—it would require almost a territorial army of inspectors to enforce the law. That was really what he rose to say. The difficulty of inspection at the present moment was enormous, and instead of the right hon. Gentleman making the task more simple he was making it more difficult. Anyone who listened to the enumeration of the various departments read out to-day would see how impossible it would be to enforce the regulations embodied in the Order. The Home Secretary had said that the Member for Leicester had accused him of having committed every political enormity.

*MR. GLADSTONE

I did not say that.

MR. H. J. TENNANT

Well, he addressed him as if he had accused him of committing every political enormity. He did not think any one would accuse the

right hon. Gentleman of having committed any political enormity except the passing of the Laundry Act of last year, which was a very bad Act and had resulted in this particular Order being issued.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 26; Noes, 175. (Division List No. 50.)

AYES.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Remnant, James Farquharson
Barnes, G. N. Grayson, Albert Victor Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Hay, Hon. Claude George Richardson, A.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hills, J. W. Summerbell, T.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Courthope, G. Loyd Hudson, Walter
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Jowett, F. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and Mr. Parker.
Cremer, Sir William Randal Morpeth, Viscount
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles O'Grady, J.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Crossley, William J. Hill, Sir Clement
Acland, Francis Dyke Cullinan, J. Hobart, Sir Robert
Ainsworth, John Stirling Dalziel, James Henry Holland, Sir William Henry
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Holt, Richard Durning
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Horniman, Emslie John
Armitage, R. Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Armstrong, W. G Heaton Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hyde, Clarendon
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N Illingworth, Percy H.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Jardine, Sir J.
Barker, John Dobson, Thomas W. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Duckworth, James Kekewich, Sir George
Beauchamp, E. Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Kilbride, Denis
Bennett, E. N. Elibank, Master of Laidlaw, Robert
Berridge, T. H. D. Essex, R. W. Lambert, George
Black, Arthur W. Everett, R. Lacey Lamont, Norman
Boland, John Findlay, Alexander Lane-Fox, G. R.
Boulton, A. C. F. Forster, Henry William Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Bramsdon, T. A. Gibb, James (Harrow) Layland-Barratt, Francis
Branch, James Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Levy, Sir Maurice
Brigg, John Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. Lewis, John Herbert
Brotherton, Edward Allen Glendinning, R. G. Lupton, Arnold
Bryce, J. Annan Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Maclean, Donald
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Guiland, John W. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Haddock, George B. M'Callum, John M.
Byles, William Pollard Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis M'Micking, Major G.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) Maddison, Frederick
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Markham, Arthur asil
Clough, William Hart-Davies, T. Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Collins, Sir Hm.J.(S. Pancras, W Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Marnham, F. J.
Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Hayden, John Patrick Micklem, Nathaniel
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hazleton, Richard Middlebrook, William
Cory, Sir Clifford John Healy, Timothy Michael Mond, A.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hedges, A. Paget Montagu, E. S.
Cowan, W. H. Hemmerde, Edward George Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cox, Harold Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Morse, L. L.
Crosfield, A. H. Higham, John Sharp Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Murray, James Rendall, Athelstan Tomkinson, James
Myer, Horatio Ridsdale, E. A. Toulmin, George
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Verney, F. W.
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wadsworth, J.
Nield, Herbert Robinson, S. Waring, Walter
Nolan, Joseph Roche, John (Galway, East) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Roe, Sir Thomas Waterlow, D. S.
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Rogers, F. E. Newman White, Sir George (Norfolk)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Ronaldshay, Earl of White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Runciman, Walter White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Partington, Oswald Russell, T. W. Whitehead, Rowland
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wiles, Thomas
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Pirie, Duncan V. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Williamson, A.
Power, Patrick Joseph Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Soares, Ernest J. Winfrey, R.
Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Radford, G. H. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Rees, J. D. Thomasson, Franklin