HC Deb 17 November 1925 vol 188 cc205-17

I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out the words "to III, inclusive," and to insert instead thereof the words "and II."

I hope the Committee will forgive me if I explain briefly the purpose of this Amendment. In 1920 the country was faced with a very difficult situation owing to a very large number of women workers being suddenly thrown out of employment in munition works and no other work being found for them. It was suggested then that a temporary Measure should be passed to allow women to work between the hours of 6 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock at night. Under the Factory Acts the normal periods within which a woman has been allowed to work have been between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., or 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., or, in the case of non-textile factories, 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. There was a great deal of opposition to the idea of allowing women to work between such extended hours as six in the morning and ten at night, and a Commission was appointed to deal with the whole question. This Commission was faced with almost unanimous opposition from the trade unions, who pointed out the very real difficulties and hardships that would arise if these very long hours were sanctioned. I want to make it perfectly clear that it was not suggested that women should work from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., but that any employer of labour, after giving the proper notice, and provided that a sufficient number of his workpeople agreed, could work women at any time between those hours without making the necessary provision for overtime. In many cases girls were leaving home very early in the morning in order to start work at six o'clock, and with these long hours there would be very little time for recreation or for evening classes or education, and the whole of the trade unions agreed that the proposed alteration was thoroughly unsound.

It was impressed upon the representatives of the trade unions who met that Commission, and I was one of the people who gave evidence, that this was a temporary measure, that it was to be in operation for five years, and that after that time the House of Commons would be able to go into the whole matter and revise it if necessary. It was impressed upon us, also, that there was a rush of replacement orders, that there was difficulty in getting plant and machinery and other difficulties consequent on the rush of the post-War period 1918–1921, when the boom was on, and that if a manufacturer were allowed to work his machines between the extended hours he could employ double, or nearly double, the amount of female labour, and that this would go a long way towards absorbing munition workers. Under those circumstances the representatives of the trade unions on the Commission agreed to this proposed alteration. Almost immediately afterwards, however, came the slump in industry, and those-large firms which had been pressing for this increase of hours had not, as a matter of fact, put them into operation. But this is where the difficulty arises. I have made inquiries on this subject, and I find that the type of firm taking advantage of this two-shift system is the worst type of firm, the sweating employer; and even of those who are taking advantage of it, only a comparatively small proporation asked for it. I do not say that when the rush of replacement orders swept across industry there might not have been some justification for this alteration; but I submit to the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that that crisis has passed, that there is now no difficulty whatever in getting any amount of plant, and that the whole basis of the employers' claim for these extended hours has completely disappeared. The only thing which happens now is that these extended hours can be used by certain rather undesirable employers of labour; and that so few decent employers are using this two-shift system that it is no longer necessary to include the Act under the Expiring Laws Bill for another term of years.

I submit to the Under-Secretary that this is no party matter. We have had five years' experience of this without the House having had any opportunity of passing an opinion upon it. The experience of those five years, or at any rate the last four of them, after the immediate crisis has passed, has been such as to make it perfectly plain that this Clause is no longer necessary, and in the interests of the health of the people and family life, and the necessity for recreation, I would like to ask the Home Secretary, who probably has not considered this question very closely, whether it would not be possible to accept this Amendment which I am moving on behalf of the Labour party.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson)

I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here to reply to the hon. Lady who has just sat down, but the Government thought that she was going to move the second Amendment which stands in her name on the Paper, and which I think would have been a more convenient way of dealing with this question. I do not think the Mover of this Amendment has shown any urgent reason why this Clause should, be dropped. The hon. Lady requires this change made in regard to the two-shift system provided for under the 1920 Act, but apparently she does not realise that under that Act you cannot have this two-shift system put into operation unless there has been a joint representation made by the employers and employed, and even after that there has to be a very careful inquiry into the matter, and the Secretary of State has to decide whether a case for issuing an Order has been made out.


Is it not a fact that the Act does not definitely state that the consent of the trade unions has to be obtained, because that is an important point. In a trade where the workers are not properly organised the employer can get the workpeople to agree to almost anything.


The Act deals with this matter quite clearly. It lays down that the Secretary of State may, on the joint application of employers and employés in any factory or workshop, with the consent of the majority of the workpeople concerned in such factory or workshop, issue an Order. When we have received any such applications no instance has come to our notice of any pressure having been put upon the employé. If we found that pressure had been brought to bear on the workpeople, the Secretary of State would not grant the application. Under this Act any industry can send a representation to the Secretary of State that they do not want such an Order put in force at all, and they have under the Act a month's grace after the Secretary of State has made such an Order in which they are able to get that Order rescinded. As a matter of fact, since the Act was passed, not one single case has occurred where any industry has sent in such a representation.


Is it not a fact that such representations were made in the case of the employés of Messrs. Lever Bros., and when the case was inquired into it was found that the Order had been put into force without the permission of the Home Secretary?


My information is that no use whatever has been made of this provision under the Act. If the hon. Lady knows of any cases of this kind which are contrary to the law I should be very glad to have them. I do not think that this question assumes such proportions as the Mover of this Amendment has made out, because the total number of cases up to date is only 491, and as a matter of fact only about one-third of that number are at present in operation, and we have had scarcely any complaints at all. We have had a certain number of cases in which some; of the workers engaged have complained because they live too far away from the factory or workshop, but in those cases particular care has been taken to arrange where these workers are employed a long way from their homes that the Order only comes into force in reference to people who live fairly near the factory. After all we are only asking for this Act to operate for one year. It has now been in force five years, and we have had very few complaints in regard to its working. Generally speaking the local trade unions are in favour of it, and we have had very few complaints at the Home Office that the Act has worked unfairly.


Could the Undersecretary give me the name of one single trade union that gave evidence before the Commission that agreed to this Clause?


What I stated was that while this Act has been in force we have had very few complaints from the trade unions that it was working unfairly. We have had one or two complaints that it operated rather harshly on people who had to go a long way to their homes, and we have taken care to see that some arrangement has been made for the accommodation of these people nearer their work before the Order has been made. Of course, the Home Secretary is always ready to do his best to mitigate any grievance under this Act, but in regard to the information received, we have no information at all that this. Act, generally speaking, has created any hardship.


The Under-Secretary is evidently unaware that the opposition to this Clause comes from an organisation which represents more women than any other trade union in the country. I think the instances which have already been given ought to induce the Government to withdraw this Clause. What does the Clause do? It gives the Home Secretary power in certain circumstances to become a law-maker for himself, and to alter the normal law of the country as it now exists. So far as men are concerned, there is no protection in the law at present against the working of two shifts or the working of any hours, but women and young persons, under the normal law, have been safeguarded. This Clause gives the Home Secretary power at any time, on certain representations being made from any factory, to adopt a different principle from that embodied in the ordinary law of the country, and, possibly, to make Orders that will injure the best type of employer in the trade and give a premium to the poor employer.

Let me explain what the power is that is given to the Home Secretary. If in a Lancashire town a factory exists where the employer desires to work two shifts to reduce his overhead charges, and to work with female labour, it gives him power, if he can induce a majority of his workers to agree, whatever the rest of the trade may say, to make an application to the Home Secretary for an Order allowing him to work two shifts—for that is what it comes to—while the rest or the trade may be working one. It may be said that the Home Secretary will exercise his discretion, but his discretion is not enough; the protection that the workers want is a definite protection laid down by Statute, and not by the benevolence either of the Home Secretary or of any other Minister. It is claimed that this Clause is relatively of little service to anybody, and it is claimed, on the other hand, that it has never been protested against. Then why not drop it, and revert to what was the ordinary law of the country before this special Clause was passed? It has been in operation for five years; why give anybody the privilege of introducing again in this country the abominable system of women and young persons getting up at half-past five in the morning, or, in the alternative, working till 10 at night? Surely, enough time has passed since the War to get rid of this Clause and revert to the protection that was given to women and young persons under the ordinary law.

I hope the Under-Secretary will see the argument I am trying to put forward, that no Minister of the Crown, however benevolent, however good his intentions, ought to have such a power as is given under this Clause except in extraordinary cirumstances. The extraordinary circumstances do not exist. The danger is due to the Clause, and more harm can come from it than ever there can be good. You can have applications from people who in the normal course of trade work certain hours; you can have one factory, one employer, or even one district, that can get these agreements, and, if that request is granted, you are placing the whole of the rest of the trade at a disadvantage in competing with the firm to whom this permission has been given. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to accept this Amendment, to go back to the law as it existed before this special provision was made, and to let us go on with the ordinary law of the land as it was before. No reasonable employer would ever desire again to have women and young persons getting up at five o'clock in the morning to go to work; there is no human being in the country who ever wants to go bark to that system. Why keep it in? Why not get rid of it and have done with it, and let us get on with our work?


I want to support the contention that no reasonable employer would care to take advantage of this Clause. I believe that the method of industry is to get as near to a level of carrying on industry, and a level of overhead charges and all the rest of it, as possible, and I want to suggest that it is not in the best interests of the employers themselves that unscrupulous members of their class should try to take advantage of the workpeople, as undoubtedly they have.


indicated dissent.


I challenge the Home Office to produce any evidence that Messrs. Lever Bros. did make an application along with their workpeople before they put this Clause into operation. I state that they put it into operation before they applied. I make that definite charge, and I also make another charge—that the union of which I have the honour of being a member did make representations to the Home Office protesting vigorously against Clause 2. That evidence which was submitted to the Home Office by my union surely ought to be in the correspondence at the Home Office. The unions as a general body are opposed to the employment of women under this double-shift system. I want to tell the Home Secretary that in the case of Messrs. Lever Bros., which I have quoted, girls living in Liverpool have had to leave their beds at half-past four in the morning in order to be at work at Port Sunlight. They had to cross the river and wait for trams, and, as a matter of fact, special facilities had to be provided in order to get them to the works, even when they got up at half-past four.

We want to protect our people from the unreasonable employer. We who have been in the workshops know that when workpeople are called severally and individually into the office, or asked by the foreman, "Do you take exception to this?" they immediately think that if they do their job is gone. Naturally, married men, and women and young girls who have to earn their livelihood, will, rather than be discharged, say that they have no objection. That is not a proper method of getting an expression of opinion. I suggest that the only method of getting a real expression of opinion is through the employés as a body and not as individuals. The other method is an unscrupulous and wrong method, which ought to be made impossible by law. In this case they did it first, and then, severally and individually, got hold of the employés and got them to acquiesce in the making of a joint application.

I want to press this point in the interest of the women. We who have had to deal with women working in the textile factories do not want our women ever again to have to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning in order to earn a living for themselves and their children. We object strenuously to that, and feel very strongly that these women ought to be protected by law, that it ought to be impossible for any employer to make use of the labour of women on this double-shift system. It is too bad for words. I thought we had got away from that, and were never going back to the old hours. Agreements have been made to that effect in the woollen textile industry between employers and employed, but, if an unscrupulous employer desires to remain outside the agreement, he can get his workpeople to give their acquiescence, and then make an application on their behalf to the Home Office and get that permission which the majority of the employers and employés in the industry do not desire. I do ask the Under-Secretary to take these things into consideration and withdraw the obnoxious Clause, so that it may not be possible for one employer to take advantage of others.

4.0 P.M.


Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that these Orders have only been issued in very exceptional circumstances. They have only been issued where, for instance, there has been a fire and a breakdown of machinery, or to meet very exceptional seasonal pressure in certain industries, or to enable a contract to be secured requiring the installation of additional machinery or the building or enlargement of premises. In all of these cases the issue of the Order has prevented overtime work, and in every case it has helped employment. As the present state of unemployment is very severe, I hope this Amendment will not be pressed at this moment. If you will allow us to have it for another year. I can guarantee that at the Home Office we will go into all the particular points made by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder). I will look into the point about Lever Bros, especially. It is the first that I have heard of it. We will certainly look into all these cases, and I should like some representations from the trade unions or from somebody else affected. We will have an inquiry into the subject and look very carefully into it, but at the moment it would be a great pity without further inquiry to cut this out of the Bill. That is my offer.


I am afraid, after the experience that we have had of the operation of this Act, we cannot agree to its prolongation for another year. The case quoted by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) is well known to the Department. The method adopted was for the foreman to go round the place consulting with a few of the girls, and they, thinking that there was nothing in the point, said, "Yes, we agree." It was not until the system was put into operation that the unions and the joint industrial council for the industry discovered what had been done. The Home Office at a later date did approve, and they said that they were quite satisfied that a vote had been taken and that both the employers and the employed were agreeable

to the operation of the scheme. When we asked some of the workpeople, they said that it was casually mentioned to them, and they said "Yes." The Home Office accepted that as being the voice of the workpeople upon the matter. It is not a question only of getting up at five o'clock in the morning. It is a question of some of the girls having to cross Liverpool at half-past three o'clock in the morning in order to catch a train on the other side of the Mersey so that they may reach their work. I will not ask anyone what he would think about asking young girls to cross the streets of Liverpool at half-past three or four o'clock in the morning. The police complained about it. You are asking us to agree to this system, and we are not prepared to do so. It is a system that is not needed. Dealing with many industries of this country, I can safely say that I know of no employers of any standing or federation of employers who have demanded it and who want it, and I am sure that you have had no representations from the employés asking for it. I hope, therefore, that you will agree to the withdrawal of this Act from the Bill to-day.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 122.

Division No. 362.] AYES. [4.5 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bullock, Captain M. Drewe, C.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Edmondson, Major A. J.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Butler, Sir Geoffrey Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Apsley, Lord Campbell, E. T. Elveden, Viscount
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) England, Colonel A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.).
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Chapman, Sir S. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Charterls, Brigadier-General J. Everard, W. Lindsay
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Christle, J. A. Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Clarry, Reginald George Fermoy, Lord
Bennett, A. J. Cobb, Sir Cyril Fielden, E. B.
Berry, Sir George Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Finburgh, S.
Bethell, A. Cohen, Major J. Brunel Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Betterton, Henry B. Cooper, A. Duff Fleming, D. P.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cope, Major William Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Boothby, R. J. G. Couper, J. B. Forrest, W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Foster, Sir Harry S.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Crook, C. W. Fraser, Captain Ian
Brass, Captain W. Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Frece, Sir Walter de
Brassey, Sir Leonard Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Fremantte, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Curzon, Captain Viscount Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Briggs, J. Harold Dalkeith, Earl of Ganzoni, Sir John
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Dalziel, Sir Davison Gee, Captain R.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham) Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Goff, Sir Park
Gower, Sir Robert Looker, Herbert William Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Grace, John Lowe, Sir Francis William Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Grant, J. A. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Greene, W. P. Crawford Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Gretton, Colonel John Lumley, L. R. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Grotrian, H. Brent Lynn, Sir Robert J. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Gunston, Captain D. W. MacAndrew, Charles Glen Sanderson, Sir Frank
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne) Macintyre, Ian Savery, S. S.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) McLean, Major A. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)
Hammersley, S. S. Macmillan, Captain H. Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Hanbury, C. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Macquisten, F. A. Shepperson, E. W.
Harland, A. MacRobert, Alexander M. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Harrison, G. J. C. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Meller, R. J. Smithers, Waldron
Haslam, Henry C. Meyer, Sir Frank Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hawke, John Anthony Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Sprot, Sir Alexander
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Moles, Thomas Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Stanley Lord (Fylde)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Hilton, Cecil Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) Nelson, Sir Frank Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Tinne, J. A.
Holland, Sir Arthur Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Holt, Captain H. P. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Hopkins, J. W. W. Nuttall, Ellis Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Oakley, T. Waddington, R.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Pease, William Edwin Warrender, Sir Victor
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Pennefather, Sir John Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hurd, Percy A. Penny, Frederick George Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hurst, Gerald B. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Watts, Dr. T.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wells, S. R.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Pielou, D. P. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Jacob, A. E. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Jephcott, A. R. Price, Major C. W. M. Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Radford, E. A. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Raine, W. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Kindersley, Major G. M. Ramsden, E. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Rawson, Alfred Cooper Wise, Sir Fredric
Knox, Sir Alfred Rees, Sir Beddoe Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Lamb, J. Q. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R. Reid, D. D. (County Down) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Rentoul, G. S. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Rice, Sir Frederick TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Loder, J. de V. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Connolly, M. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Cove, W. G. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Hardie, George D.
Ammon, Charles George Crawfurd, H. E. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Attlee, Clement Richard Dalton, Hugh Hayday, Arthur
Baker, Walter Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Hayes, John Henry
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Barr, J. Day, Colonel Harry Hirst, G. H.
Batey, Joseph Dennison, R. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Briant, Frank Fenby, T. D. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Broad, F. A. Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Gibbins, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West)
Buchanan, G. Gillett, George M. Kelly, W. T.
Cape, Thomas Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lansbury, George
Charleton, H. C. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lawson, John James
Clowes, S. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lee, F.
Cluse, W. S. Groves, T. Livingstone, A. M.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Grundy, T. W. Lowth, T.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Lunn, William
Compton, Joseph Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Mackinder, W. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Wallhead, Richard C.
MacLaren, Andrew Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
March, S. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Sitch, Charles H. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Montague, Frederick Smillie, Robert Weir, L. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Welsh, J. C.
Naylor, T. E. Snell, Harry Westwood, J.
Oliver, George Harold Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Palin, John Henry Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles Whiteley, W.
Paling, W. Stamford, T. W. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Ponsonby, Arthur Stephen, Campbell Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Potts, John S. Sutton, J. E. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Taylor, R. A. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Riley, Ben Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.) Windsor, Walter
Rose, Frank H. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) Wright, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred Thurtle, E. Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)
Scrymgeour, E. Tinker, John Joseph
Scurr, John Townend, A. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Sexton, James Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Viant, S. P. Kennedy.

I have received a manuscript Amendment to leave out Subsection (2). The same point has already been taken up by an Amendment on the Paper to the Schedule, and I find that the Government Department concerned has had no notice that it would come on at this earlier stage. I feel bound therefore to call it on the Schedule.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 (Amending enactments) and 4 (Short title and application to Ireland) ordered to stand part of the Bill.