§ Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 42, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 2, in page 38.
2103Mr. STANLEYI beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Clause 48 of the Bill, which deals with employment, lays it down as a specific rule that no child under the age of 12 years shall be employed. It then continues with a proviso that by-laws made under the next succeeding Clause may authorise the employment of children under the age of 12 years by their parents or guardians. It is that proviso which has been cut out by the Amendment that we are now discussing. I propose to restore the proviso to the Bill, with the addition of the words, "in light agricultural or horticultural work." It has been thought wise in another place to remove the permission for the employment of children by parents or guardians altogether. This Amendment would restore it, with the limitation that it is to be employment only in light agricultural or horticultural work.
I think there was misconception, in some minds at any rate, when this matter was being discussed in another place, as it was clearly considered that the Bill gave power to parents to authorise their children to be employed by somebody else, as, of course, has never been the case. The effect of accepting the Lords Amendment and of cutting out altogether employment of children under 12 by their parents, would stop what I believe is a thing which nobody desires, to stop, and that is fruit picking, hop picking and the ordinary light work around the farm. If a father and mother are going out vegetable picking in the season, they might just as well take their children under 12. No one could possibly object that it is work of a character which is injurious to them. Probably it is very healthy. No one, for instance, could suggest that, during the holidays, children who live on a farm should not be employed in light agricultural work about that farm. We have sanctioned a number of by-laws authorising the employment of children under 12 by their parents. There are very few areas, and, except in two or three cases, they are confined to employment in these light agricultural or horticultural occupations.
The effect of the House accepting my proposal would be that, in a few areas, where by-laws have been passed allowing employment in other occupations—in some cases in shops and in other cases in dairy 2104 or newspaper work—those by-laws will, of course be ultra vires, when this Bill passes. With that limitation, and leaving employment in the garden or the field free, although under by-laws authorising that and sanctioned by the Secretary of State, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment which I have moved.
§ Mr. RHYS DAV1ESThis is the first point which we have reached in our deliberations to-day upon which I am afraid that I shall have to agree with the Lords and to disagree profoundly with the present Government. I am not quite clear whether I sum up the situation rightly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to inform and help me to understand the position. I believe that if the decision of the other place to remove these words from the Bill were adopted, it would mean in effect that no child under 12 in this country could be employed, even by its parents or guardians. Let us make clear the point that we have made several times in discussion on this Bill, namely, that employment within the meaning of this Bill is employment for profit. That is understood. I am sure I am right there. The definition of employment, I have always understood, meant employment for profit or gain, because nobody is going to argue that any piece of legislation at any time can prevent parents sending a child of seven years of age to fetch something from a shop. Consequently, employment within the meaning of this Bill is employment in a place that is owned by the parents or guardians run for profit. If I am right, therefore, in assuming that that is so, their Lordships are very much in advance of this Government, because it would mean—
Mr. STANLEYI am sorry to have to interrupt. If the hon. Member looks at Clause 58, in the definitions he will see that, for the purpose of this part of the Bill, a person who assists in a trade or occupation carried on for profit, shall be deemed to be employed, notwithstanding that he receives no reward for his labour. In other words, if a child goes out into its parent's garden and picks peas that are going to be sold, although he gets nothing for his labour that child is employed within the meaning of the Bill.
§ Mr. DAVIESI meant the same thing. What I meant was that when a parent 2105 or guardian employs a child, even though the child receives no wages, provided that the business of the parent or guardian is carried on for profit then the child is employed. I think that is the definition that is in the Bill. Let us see exactly what is likely to happen. The other place has declared in effect that it stands for this principle: That no child under 12 years of age, in this country, after the passing of this Measure, shall be employed within the meaning of the word "employment" by anybody, even by its parents or guardians. I think that that is a magnificent step forward in connection with the employment of children. The hon. Gentleman comes down and says that, whilst he disagrees entirely with their Lordships, he is going to soften the blow by a compromise. He says, in effect, "We will not allow children to be employed by their parents or guardians in future, and thus far we have been convinced by their Lordships; but we will allow the employment of such children to horticultural or agricultural operations."
§ Mr. DAVIESIt must be light, otherwise they could not do it. I hope that
§ I have summed up the situation rightly. I must say I am very sorry that the Government have not been able to accept the Lords Amendment, because, for once in a way, their Lordships have made a great advance on the present Government. I do not know why they reached that decision; that is their own business; but for my part—[Interruption.] I think they must have read my speeches. I understand that they are entitled to read our speeches there, although we are not entitled to read their speeches here. Consequently, we cannot be convinced by anything that they say, but there is a possibility of their being convinced by what we say. I am sorry that, on a Bill which is otherwise non-controversial, we must disagree with the attitude of the Government, and, unless we hear arguments very much more powerful than have been put by the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid that we shall be compelled to vote, for once, in favour of the House of Lords.
§ Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 28.
2107| Division No. 270.] | AYES. | [8.27 p.m. |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. | Gledhill, Gilbert | McLean, Major Alan |
| Albery, Irving James | Glossop, C. W. H. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) |
| Alexander. Sir William | Goff, Sir Park | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Magnay, Thomas |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. |
| Banks, sir Reginald Mitchell | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Hales, Harold K. | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Hanbury, Cecil | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Brocklebank C. E. R. | Hanley, Dennis A. | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Harbord, Arthur | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Harris, Sir Percy | Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Morgan, Robert H. |
| Burghley, Lord | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) | Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Nail, Sir Joseph |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Holdsworth, Herbert | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Nunn, William |
| Chalmers, John Rutherford | Hornby, Frank | O'Donovan, Dr. William James |
| Chapman, Col, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Horsbrugh, Florence | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Pearson, William G. |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Peat, Charles U. |
| Craven-Ellis, William | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Penny, Sir George |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Janner, Barnett | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) | Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Ker, J. Campbell | Powell, Lieut.-Col, Evelyn G. H. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Kirkpatrick, William M. | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Law, Sir Alfred | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Denville, Alfred | Leckie, J. A. | Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Levy, Thomas | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Dickie, John P. | Lewis, Oswald | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Drewe, Cedric | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.) | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Remer, John R. |
| Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | McKie, John Hamilton | Reynolds. Col. Sir James Philip |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Robinson, John Roland |
| Rosbotham, S. T. | Slater, John | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Rothschild, James A. de | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) |
| Runge, Norah Cecil | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Rutherford, Sir John Hugo | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J, | White, Henry Graham |
| Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart | Storey, Samuel | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard | Stourton, Hon. John J. | Womersley, Waiter James |
| Scone, Lord | Strickland, Captain W. F. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Selley, Harry R. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Tate, Mavis Constance | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) | |
| Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Skelton, Archibald Noel | Thorp, Linton Theodore | Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.- |
| Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hicks, Ernest George | Milner, Major James |
| Batey, Joseph | Jenkins, Sir William | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Jennings, Roland | Price, Gabriel |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Buchanan, George | Kirkwood, David | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Dagger, George | Lawson, John James | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Leonard, William | |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Logan, David Gilbert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Greenwood Rt. Hon. Arthur | Lunn, William | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. John. |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | McEntee, Valentine L. |
Question put, and agreed to.
Mr. STANLEYI beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 38, line 2, at the end, to insert the words "in light agricultural or horticultural work."
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESI want to make it clear that we are agreeing with the words which the hon. Gentleman is now proposing to insert, not because we agree with the whole proposal, but because this Amendment makes the position more acceptable to us than it was formerly.