§ Mr. YERBURGHasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Emily Sadler, appellant, and John Sheriff Roberts, respondent, which, in April last, came before the High Court, as stated by the justices of the peace for the county of Carnarvon; whether he is aware that under the judgment given a laundry attached to any hotel or boarding-house, although it is used for hotel washing only and not for visitors, and so is not carried on by way of trade or for the purposes of gain, and has employed in it not more than one or two women at the most, comes within the Factories and Workshops Acts, 1901 and 1907; and whether he will introduce legislation 1632 to exempt such laundries from the provisions of the said Acts?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe proceedings in this case were taken by my direction. One of the objects of the Act of 1907 was to apply the provisions of the Factory Acts, subject to certain modifications, to laundries which are carried on as ancillary to some other business, such as that of a hotel; and the decision of the court is in accordance with that intention. These laundries are carried on for business purposes, and the workers in them require the same protection as the workers in an ordinary laundry. It does not make any difference in this respect whether the articles washed are the property of the hotel or of the visitors to the hotel.
§ Mr. HILLSasked on whose initiative the order, under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, dated 10th April, 1911, has been issued, under which order young male persons employed in making artificial silk fibre can be kept at work during the night; what are the grounds for making such an exception to the general law; who were consulted before the order was made; and whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the order before 20th May, when it becomes operative?
§ Mr. PONSONBYasked whether, in view of the fact that it is detrimental to the health of boys to be given night work, and that such work for young persons ought, instead of being increased, to be done away with altogether, will the right hon. Gentleman say at whose initiative, and by whose advice, has the order extending night work to young male persons of the age of sixteen years and upwards in the manufacture of artificial silk fibre been placed upon the Table of the House?
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEYasked whether, in making the draft order under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, permitting young persons of the age of sixteen years and upwards to work at night in the process of making artificial silk fibre, the right lion. Gentleman has consulted representatives of the employés or others qualified to speak on their behalf?
§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked (1) upon whose initiative the order applying special exemption in favour of night-work for male young persons above sixteen working in the process of artificial silk fibre in non-textile factories was issued; what reasons are given for its issue; and whether a preliminary consultation has 1633 taken place between the employers and employés affected; and, (2) approximately the number of young persons likely to be affected by the exemption of the night-work prohibition in the making of artificial silk fibre?
Mr. KINGasked the reasons for issuing an order extending the special exception by which male young persons may be employed at night in the making of artificial silk fibre in factories?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe application for the exemption was made to me by a firm who, in consequence of the Patents Act, 1907, were establishing works in this country for a process of making artificial silk which was being carried on by them on a large scale on the Continent. The process is a continuous one, requiring to be maintained night and day, and it was represented to me that the business would be seriously handicapped if boys could not be taken on before the age of eighteen. I caused inquiries to be made, and ascertained that the work on which it was proposed to employ boys between sixteen and eighteen years of age was simple and light, that the conditions were healthy, and that as the work would be carried on in eight-hour shifts the hours actually worked would be much less than those permitted by the Act. I accordingly decided to take the preliminary step of issuing a draft Order applying the exemption, subject to the conditions in Section 54 of the Act, which would prevent boys being employed continuously on the night shifts, and require a twelve-hour spell off work both before and after each spell of night employment. Notice of the draft Order was published in the usual manlier, and copies sent, in accordance with the standing arrangement, to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, as well as to other bodies interested. No representations or objections were sent to me within the forty days during which the Order remained in draft, and the Order was accordingly made. As the industry is a new one in this country, I am unable to state how many persons are likely to be affected by the Order.
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEYHas the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries whether the boys employed in this firm will be kept on permanently or will be turned off after having reached the age of eighteen, and whether, if this Order was not made, adult labour would not be employed in place of boy labour?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThat is a general question raising an issue of great importance, but far outside the scope of the administration of the Factory Act.
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEYWill the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries with regard to this firm?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am always willing to make inquiries if it is within reason, but I do not see what answer I could get. I do not suppose there would be any guarantee that these boys would be permanently employed any more than in many other industries in the country where boys are employed.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYWhat proportion of the total persons employed are young persons?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI cannot actually say what proportion.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe Order has been made.