§ Until the twenty-seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, the provisions of this Act mentioned in the first column of the Schedule (Temporary Modification of Reference to Working Flours) to this Act shall have effect as if for the references therein mentioned in the third column of that Schedule there were respectively substituted the references mentioned in the fourth column thereof:
§ Provided that as respects any shop to which the provisions of sub-section (1) of section four of this Act are applicable during a period comprising the said twenty-seventh day of December the substitution of references in that sub-section which are mentioned in the said Schedule shall continue to have effect until the expiration of that period.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 5.1 p.m.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is to put back the original Clause, which was struck out of the Bill in the Standing Committee by one vote. Members of the Committee will remember that my right hon. Friend who was in charge of the Bill upstairs said that it would be necessary for the Government to ask the House to replace the Clause. I should like to say at the outset that in bringing this Bill before Parliament we at the Home Office have endeavoured to move in close contact with all the circumstances of the problem with which we have had to deal and that over a considerable period of time negotiations have gone on with representatives both of the employers and of the various classes of those employed. The Select Committee which had to report to Parliament upon the problems with which we are dealing 362 to-day did, I think, clearly anticipate that there should be an interval between the passage of legislation and the actual working of the new proposals. I think it is also clear that they rather anticipated or considered that it would be the existing circumstances which would obtain in that interval of time until the new circumstances were brought into being.
That is not the view which the Government have taken. The House will observe that, while it may have been unanticipated by some of the employers that a 48 hours week would be achieved straight away, still they have accepted, and accepted loyally, that change coming about eventually, on the basis that there should be a period of something else. Now what is that something else? It is not, as I have tried to indicate, what what was in the minds of the Committee, namely, the existing circumstances, but it is Ian immediate reduction of the maximum weekly hours to 52. The transitional period will bring benefits which, I think, are appreciated by all sections of the House. The present legal limit upon the hours of young persons is 74 inclusive of meal-times, representing something like 68 actual hours of work. I think it is true, as has been already said in the Debate to-day, that the maximum may not often be used, and that particularly among large employers and good employers these hours are not reached, but the Select Committee, when they were examining this problem, found that the average hours of employment approximated to 54 per week. It is clear, therefore, that the immediate reduction to 52 hours is better than the average which has been in existence.
There are, of course, other provisions in the Bill besides those which deal with weekly hours. There are, for example, the provisions in Clause 2, which restrict night employment; in Clause 8, extend- 363 ing the law relating to weekly half-holidays and intervals for meals; and in Clause 9, requiring the provision in shops of adequate sanitation, washing facilities, etc. All these provisions are, I submit, of importance, and they all come into operation immediately the Bill comes into force and are not affected by the proposal, which in fact is what I am moving, to postpone the introduction of the 48 hours week. Those who desire to see the material improvement which this Bill aims at bringing about may say to themselves that two years is a longish time to wait for the final objective, but I have to say to the House quite frankly that, in my view and in the view of those with whom I have been working, a material advantage will be achieved if in fact we carry with us, not only the consent, but the good will and the close co-operation of all classes of employers in this country, who, frankly, did not expect to have this Government imposing upon them a 48 hours week, but something less restrictive.
We have had to discuss this question over a long period with all sorts and classes of people and under all kinds of circumstances, and I would say that this is a Bill which has no party complexion about it at all. It is a social reform which everyone of us, to whatever party he may belong, desires to see achieved; and as a result of having taken part in and followed closely all these negotiations over a long period of time, I say to the House emphatically that in my judgment it is right and proper that this interval of time should be granted, and that I believe that the final result of making this arrangement and putting it into the Bill again, as it was originally, will be, not to the detriment, but really to the well-being of all those whom we desire to serve.
§ 5.10 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
The right hon. Gentleman has correctly interpreted what happened upstairs, when the Labour group in the Standing Committee, with the help of several of the Members supporting the Government, was able to defeat the Government by one vote. The right hon. Gentleman is re-instituting that Clause, and I had better say how we look at it. This Clause will provide a 52 hours week for all young persons from 364 14 to 18 years of age up to the end of 1936, with no overtime at all for young persons up to 16. At the end of 1936, 2i years hence, the 48 hours week will come into operation with a stipulated number of hours overtime for young persons of 16 and 17 years of age. There is a Schedule to the Bill connected with this Clause, and I have one congratulation to offer to the right hon. Gentleman, that he has given us in that Schedule the best crossword puzzle that I have ever seen in a Bill before Parliament. I have been studying it very closely, and although I thought I had an acute mind on these things, I have practically failed to understand what it all means.
We are face to face, therefore, with this simple problem, and I had better explain what we propose to do with this Clause, and with the Amendment to it which stands in our name lower on the Paper. We propose, if it pleases Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss the principle of this Clause, including the date of its coming into operation, in general, and not to vote against the Clause, but to vote for the Amendment bringing forward the date to 1935, when that Amendment is put.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)
Do I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly that he would like to take a general discussion on the Question, "That the Clause be read a. Second time," including the question of date, on the understanding that he takes a Division on his Amendment afterwards without further discussion?
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
That will suit our purpose very well, Sir, because we can then get a Division. We have come to a very important point in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion in this Debate has tried to express the mind of the Select Committee by saying that it recommended a proper interval before the change was brought about. I have been looking round to-day, and I think I am the only Member of that Select Committee left in attendance in this House to-day—I think there are only five of us left in this Parliament—and I think I can interpret the mind of the Select Committee, if I may say so without offence, better than can the right hon. Gentleman, because I was a member of it, and he was not. The mere fact that he is Secretary of State does not 365 give him a greater title to interpret the mind of that committee than that possessed by a member of it. I am sure I am right in saying that the Select Committee never contemplated that before a 48 hours week was established for these young persons they would have to wait 2½ years after the passing of the Measure; and let it be remembered that the Select Committee reported in 1931 and that all the organisations representing the shopkeeping community brought their proposals before that Select Committee and all of them have seen articles and comments in their own trade Press on these recommendations ever since 1931.
This is not new to them. They know all about it, and consequently we say that the date ought to be brought forward from December, 1936. We thought that the suggestion that we made upstairs might be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman. That suggestion was that, instead of asking that it should come into operation at the end of December, 1934, we were willing to compromise by accepting December, 1935. The right hon. Gentleman has stuck to his guns in spite of the opposition of his own supporters, and I am not sure that he is not going to be defeated this afternoon. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) was in the same Division Lobby as ourselves on the last occasion, and I feel sure that every hon. Member who voted in that way upstairs will vote in the same way to-day in order to carry the flag to the last ditch as it were.
Let me give reasons why we object to December, 1936. Can hon. Members conceive anything in any kind of shop that warrants a preparation for 21 years before this Bill comes into operation? There are hundreds of thousands of shop assistants who have been working for 48 hours a week for years. All Co-operative employs, numbering 200,000, have worked for 48 hours and less for the last 15 or 20 years. Consequently, it is no argument to say that shopkeepers cannot put their house in order in less than two and a-half years. The National Government bring in a Bill to deal with about 400,000 young persons in order to regulate their conditions of employment, and they want to give the employers two and a-half years in which to arrange their business, so that the Act can be put into operation. 366 Yet the same Government transformed the fiscal policy of this country from Free Trade to tariffs, subsidies, bounties and quotas in the twinkling of an eye. That was an operation affecting 42,000,000 people. When it comes to the welfare of a few thousand young persons, they want two and a-half years in which to act. If they want to subsidise tramp shipping, an hour will do, and they can give £3,000,000 to the beef industry in five minutes. That is the attitude of mind of the Government—young people last, beasts of burden, farmers, shipbuilders, employers and financiers first every time. [Interruption.] The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division will no doubt speak after me, and perhaps she will reserve her remarks until then instead of conducting a duet with me.
We see no reason why we should wait 2½ years. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of the mining industry, the textile industry and all the well-organised industries, but none of them would wait for 2½ years. The sad and pathetic feature of this problem is that we are dealing with young persons who, for reasons known to themselves, are not organised. The distributive trade is very badly organised on the employés' side. The right hon. Gentleman has listened to representations from the employers' side, and I do not think he has stood up to them as he ought to have done. I do not know whether some of them represented Scotland, and he was influenced because of his Scottish descent. The whole of the industrial countries in the world—people of all political parties and all shades of opinion—are marching forward, not to a 48, but to the conception of a 40-hour week. The distributive trades in this country are the last that would argue that they could not afford a 48-hour week. The balance-sheets of the retail trade companies are astonishing when nearly every other industry is suffering under the depression. I could name some of them operating in London which are well away with their 10, 15 and 20 per cent. dividends, and I am ashamed to think that some of them have been to the Home Secretary to try and induce him not to bring the 48-hour week into operation until December, 1936.
We shall have no hesitation when our Amendment is moved in registering our protest, because the shopkeeping community ought not to have waited for an 367 Act of Parliament before doing this, even if only out of sheer decency, for they have made enough profits out of the community in the last two years and ought to have given a 48-hour week without waiting for a legal enactment. We shall press for 1935, and I am hoping, in spite of all that has been suggested to the contrary, that the House will defeat the Government in order to make them do something for these young people, who have waited for 25 years and been put off by Governments with promise after promise. In spite of that, when a Bill does come before Parliament, the Government wants shop assistants to wait 2½ years before they can get their reform.
§ 5.22 p.m.
I do not want to join with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in his fierce denunciation of the Government, because we all know in our hearts that the National Government have brought in more reforms in the last two years than any other Government in the previous 20 years. I Am the last person in the world who wants to beat the Government, but I think the hon. Member has made a good case against delaying the Bill for 2½ years. Some hon. Members speak of this as being an uncharted field. It may be, but there have been many inquiries into it. This is not a party question, but no party in the world is so pledged on this particular legislation as we are. I want to remind the House of what has happened. I admire the Government for being so wonderful in bringing in this Bill, but, although I admire them so much, I must correct my loved ones if I think they are wrong.
In 1926 Lord Astor in another place brought in a Bill to deal with juveniles, and the Conservative Government said they would bring in a Bill at the earliest opportunity. In 1929 the Conservative Government were again pledged to do it at the earliest opportunity. In 1930 Lord Astor again introduced a Bill, and the Labour Government promised to put it into a Children Bill. In 1931 the Labour Government repeated that promise. In spite of the Labour Government having been in opposition for years and having plenty of time to think about their Children Bill, they did not bring it in. 368 At last we got a Children Bill, but the Under-Secretary upstairs said that they could not deal with the regulation of juveniles at the moment but would do it when industry recovered.
The recovery of our industry has been the envy of all nations in the world, and it has now recovered enough to enable a Bill to be brought in to deal with juveniles in unregulated trades, but we get only a Bill for shop assistants instead. It is a very good Bill, but it happens to leave out 300,000 juveniles in unregulated trades who are working appalling hours. I would remind the Government that I got 89 Members to vote against them two years ago because this House felt so strongly about this question. It seems to me that, if the Government had really sensed the feeling of the House, they would have brought in a Bill to deal with all children in unregulated trades. They have not seen fit to do that. They have only seen fit to bring in this Bill. Although it leaves out 300,000 juveniles, it will cover 400,000, and we are grateful for that.
I cannot understand, however, why the Government say that it should not be brought in for 24 years. When the Select Committee spoke of delay, they were referring to the whole of the shop assistants and not to juveniles. If this industry depends on working juveniles for 52 hours a week for another 2A- years, it must be in a very parlous way. I have been looking into the profits of the distributive trades. Are there any trades in the country that are doing as well? Ought they not, therefore, to be willing to face a slight reorganisation of this kind? The Home Office has been a little timorous about this question, and we ought to vote in order to show the Government what the back benchers of the House feel about it. I am sure that in the end it would help the Government. It may be said that we have an agreed measure, but the Government have not had to argue with the good employers.As hon. Members of the Opposition — those class - conscious brethren sitting below me—have admitted, the majority of employers in this country are all right. We are not legislating for them, but for those who are bad and who are determined to remain bad.
I had a letter to-day from the National Federation of Retail Fruiterers, Florists 369 and Fishmongers opposing the 48-hour week. In the next two years those who are against this reform will get together and bring pressure to bear and do all that they can to delay it further. I urge, therefore, that the Government should do it now. The Home Secretary has been negotiating with these people since last autumn, and for eight years there has been pressure in the country in favour of this reform. In spite of that, this compromise has been arrived at. We ought to show these people that the House of Commons wants the juvenile protected now. One reason why we want them protected is that juvenile crime has increased enormously. Upstairs in a Committee Room we heard some Noah's Ark men speaking. They wanted to get back into the dark ages, and I thought that Lord Banbury was in our midst. It was a small group of teachers, and they said that the cause of juvenile crime in the country was women school teachers. I had never heard it put down to that. We might as well say that juvenile crime exists because of mothers. One of the causes of juvenile crime is under-employment and another is over-employment. When you get really fagged out and tired, you are much more desperate than when you are well and fit.
There are 700,000 children who work in these unregulated trades, and we are legislating for 400,000 to-day, and they will have to work a 52-hour week for the next two years. I do not see any reason for that, any national necessity. The traders have had fair warning, and I do not see why we should not say, "You must make arrangements for this change by Christmas." I am perfectly certain that it could be done. If the Betting and Lottery Bill had been brought forward earlier there would have been no trouble, the Government could have passed it through at once; but we waited for a couple of years, and in the interval a vested interest has grown up and is now working against the Members of this House for all it is worth. When there is something to be done we ought not to put it off but to do it at once. If we delete this Clause and say that these juveniles are not to wait for two years we shall really be helping the Government. I want to do nothing but help the Government. We are grateful to them for all they have done.
370 The Government have carried far more social reforms in two years than any Government that I have known in 20 years; but they do need a little more punch at the Home Office. For years I have been urging that they should have a woman official in the Home Office. As the Home Secretary knows, I have never pressed for things for myself. One has only to look at any Front Bench to have hope of anybody getting there, but I am too much interested in social reform to think of myself, and I am convinced that anyone who is interested in bringing about a reform has more chance of success if hot looking for a job. We have the best Government we have ever had—I mean that, from the bottom of my heart—but they are timorous on this question of juvenile employment. They have listened to suggestions of compromise, not from those traders who are doing what is right towards juveniles but from those who are doing wrong. I beg the Government not to force me to vote against them, because I do not want to do it, but I cannot conscientiously vote for a delay of two years in the case of a reform which could be brought in at the end of six months, and with the country behind us. I pray the Home Secretary will not press this Clause.
§ 5.33 p.m.
§ Mr. MANDER
I do not know that I can go quite so far as my noble Friend and say that I think this is the best Government this country has ever had, but I join with her in regretting the decision which the Government have come to on this subject. The Home Secretary rightly said that this is not a controversial Measure, not a party Measure, and I think it is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), when he was Home Secretary at the time when this Government was really a National Government, took the first steps to initiate the discussions which have since developed into this Bill; but that only goes to show that for a considerable time all those concerned have known that something of the kind was coming forward and have been put on their guard. The mere fact that this is a non-party Measure ought to have insured the Home Secretary treating the decision of the Committee upstairs in a different way. There was a large majority of Government supporters 371 on the Committee and nearly all of them were present during the Debates and heard the arguments. There was no smoking-room to which they could retire, and those who voted voted on the arguments as they had come before them; yet these faithful, loyal, devoted supporters of the Government defeated the Government and, contrary to the wishes of the Government and of the Home Office, decided that the Measure ought to come into operation at once. Surely that is pretty strong ground from which to start.
I can understand the Government saying that they cannot go so far as to accept the proposal that the Measure should come into operation immediately, but there is a great deal to be said for accepting the compromise, as they have compromised on several other matters in the Bill, and allowing the Measure to come into operation in one and a half years' time. I hope that even now the Government will feel able to make such a concession. But even if we have to wait two and a half years the Bill is very well worth waiting for. If it were really necessary that there should be this delay one would not object to it, but is there any real necessity? Is it not better that all concerned should have to face up to the situation at once? They will in any case have to face up to it in two and a half years' time. They will have to make transitional arrangements for a short period, and I should have thought the trade would have felt that it was better to make the change at once and get the new system into operation rather than be left wondering what they are going to do at the end of the period. I do not think any case has been made out for a delay of two and a half years. My Noble Friend says that the traders have, in a sense, had eight years' notice, and they have certainly had two years' notice as a result of the activities at the Home Office; and in the interest of the traders themselves it would be better to deal with the case now rather than delay matters for another two and a half years.
§ 5.38 p.m.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS
I am sorry the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is not now present, because I have a question to put to him, but perhaps another hon. Member on the same side who is connected with the 372 co-operative movement can supply me with information. I understand the hon. Member for Westhoughton now takes the view that some transitional period is necessary.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
There is no reason why he should not divide against the Government's Clause if he is opposed to a period of transition. He has evidently come to the conclusion that a period of transition is necessary, because he has declared that he will not divide against the Clause. He can vote againt the Clause and if the, Second Reading is carried he can then move an Amendment to alter the date. But in the first place he could challenge the Clause, and he has said that he is not going to do so, and if that means anything it means that he is in favour of a transitional period, presumably as a result of the numerous representations which have reached him, as they have reached every other Member of the House. I do not know how many I have had, but there have been more on this Bill than most, and in the main- they have come not from great institutions making enormous profits but from organised bodies of small shopkeepers. They say they want a period of transition; whether they are right or wrong I am not sufficiently acquainted with the conditions of the retail trade to determine. Now that the hon. Member for Westhoughton has returned I will put my question to him. He said that he does not propose to divide against the Clause, that what he wants to divide upon is the period of transition. If he is not going to divide against the Clause that indicates that he is in favour of some period of transition, and I am not surprised, because of the representations which have come to us.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
If I were not in a spirit to compromise on this very important issue we would vote against the Clause as it now stands, but we have appealed more than once to the Home Secretary to get a decent compromise. That is the only reason why we are not voting against the Clause.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
If the hon. Member thinks there ought not to be a period of transition his obvious course is to vote against the Clause and, if he is defeated 373 on that, then to move to insert a new date. That is the logical course to pursue; but for other reasons he has chosen not to pursue it. He has stated that there ought to be no difficulties about making the change, because the co-operative societies have had a 48-hour week for many years. I am going to suggest that the co-operative societies are not working a 48-hour week, as this Bill means 48 hours. I am going to say that in the co-operative societies they have allowed, over and above the 48 hours, for a quarter of an hour a day for cleaning and tidying up, in other words, for a 49½hour week. The hon, Gentleman was not intending to deceive, but inadvertently he deceived the House when he said they were working a 48-hour week.
§ Mr. DAVIES
The hon. Member talks of 15 minutes for clearing up the shop. He must really understand that it does not take 15 minutes every evening to clear up the shop, and consequently his statement is not correct.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Under this Bill, when it comes into full operation, the maximum hours will be 48 per week, and any clearing up will have to be done within that period.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
But under the cooperative arrangement they have a 48-hour week and a further period, of a maximum of 11 hours, for cleaning up, and, therefore, the maximum period under the co-operative societies is not 48 hours but 49½ hours. We ought to be quite clear about that. The next item is that there are no restrictions regarding the number of hours of overtime in the co-operative agreement, and, therefore, it may well be the case that when any difficulty arises in a co-operative shop though they normally work a 48-hour week—really a 49i-hour week—they are free to work overtime in a sense which will be forbidden by this Bill.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
We are talking now about the number of hours. The question of reorganisation is not what is to be paid but whether they should be permitted to work the extra hours. That is the administrative point, and in the circumstances I suggest that the hon. Member's 374 argument, based on the co-operative arrangement, is not a valid argument. I had not come here with any decisive view about the period of transition. I am satisfied from what I have heard that a period of transition is needed, and I gather that the hon. Gentleman accepts that view, though he calls it a reasonable compromise. It is a recognition of the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of small shopkeepers—they may be muddlers, they may be unorganised, they may be anything you like—who are profoundly convinced that they do need a period of transition. It is their point of view and we are entitled to give some weight to it. There is not one of us who does not object to juveniles being worked unduly long hours, but it is obvious that some of the things which juveniles do are done at the beginning of the day and others at the end of the day, and it may be that when we have introduced this system there may be mechanised methods of doing those things which will eliminate some of that juvenile labour. That involves thought, and also the outlay of capital expenditure, and the process will vary from trade to trade. Anyone with an experience of managing a business knows that the introduction of such changes is attended by some difficulty.
It is no good saying that the trade have had eight years warning. Nobody regards the setting up of a Royal Commission as a warning. I can remember the Royal Commission on the Poor Law being appointed, when the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was a Member of the Government, and I remember the night its report came out. "Bumble to go," was the comment. That was in 1908 or 1909, and "Bumble" is only departing this year, with the passage into law of the Unemployment Bill. That is the end of "Bumble" as we understand the term. Therefore it is not fair to say that the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, or the existence of an agitation, is a warning to people in any industry that something is to happen on a certain date. From the practical point of view, the only effective warning is when a Bill is passing through Parliament with reasonable certainty that it will become law. Their warning therefore dates from the Second Reading of this Bill.
I shall vote for this transitional Clause, but I want to hear arguments as to the 375 period of transition. Up too now we have not heard arguments as to any particular date; certainly the arguments of the hon. Member for Westhoughton were not on any particular date. The arguments of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) referred almost entirely to the Second Reading of the Bill and did not deal with the subject on which I want information—What, from the business point of view is a desirable length for the transitional period? Some hon. Members have practical experience of the distributive trade, and I hope that they will advise us from their knowledge; I hope also that those who are actively associated with shop assistants will give us their point of view, not from the controversial aspect, but in order that other Members of the House may come to a fair judgment upon a somewhat technical matter.
§ 5.46 p.m.
§ Mr. LEONARD
The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) seemed as though she might depart from the attitude which she adopted upstairs, but I was pleased to note that before she finished her speech she returned with all her eloquence to the attitude which she adopted in Committee. It is right that it should be so, because she speaks, I think, for organisations which have laboured very heavily for the proposal which is now before the House. She will however, appreciate that social organisations do not run businesses. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was quite right in dealing with the matter in the way in which he put it before us. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), in answer to the hon. Member's direct questions, has explained his position. I have not with me the specific agreements covering the co-operatives and the trade unions, but there is no burking the fact that there is a provision for the working of an excess of a quarter-of-an-hour. It is specifically laid down that that may be worked, if necessary, in order to clear the shop of customers. Upstairs in Committee, a letter was read with special reference to overtime. In that communication was the specific suggestion that the co-operative movement considered 376 that 48 hours was an adequate period in which to work. That is borne out—
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
That was not what I was arguing. The hon. Member for Westhoughton urged that a transitional period was unnecessary because the co-operatives were already working 48 hours, and I was pointing out that his statement did not represent the full facts.
§ Mr. LEONARD
The point I have just put before the House covers that interjection. I fail to appreciate the difficulty that prevents any private trader or anyone running shops—the co-operative movement run small shops as well as large aggregates—from operating this Bill at once. I would like details as to the problem which an employer will have to solve immediately the Bill becomes law, and which will take him till the end of 1936 to settle. That is a point upon which I have not yet been given satisfaction. Modifications in matters of detail may have to take place. The hon. Member for Westhoughton has been quite generous in his attitude. Until he gets more detailed guidance in this matter, he thinks that the end of next year is ample time to cope with any problem, and I share his opinion. I hope that in the course of the Debate some light will be thrown on this point. The Bill was introduced to deal with a specific evil. Why is it necessary, after all the preparatory work, the discussion, and the periodicals and circulars which we have received, that we should wait until the end of 1936? Upstairs the spokesman of the Government tended to lean on the guidance given by the Select Committee, and time and time again we were told that the Select Committee had recommended this or the other thing. To-day the Home Secretary, in moving this new Clause, stated truthfully that the average working time was 54 hours per week, but he might have added that the Select Committee had stated that many retail shops in this country were working from 80 to 90 hours per week.
I do not want to deal with the cooperatives again, except to say that there are 250,000 employés already enjoying the advantages for which, under the Bill, other employeés will have to wait until the end of 1936. We should not put back all the work and agitation 377 in that way. The Home Secretary rightly stated that he wanted this matter considered apart from party issues, but if it is to be delayed for another two years, agitation may start again during that period, and there may be an endeavour to make this a political issue. I agree that it should not be looked at as a political issue. If the employers and employes in the industry were sensible enough to organise themselves, they need not trouble us with this matter at all; they could deal with it on their own initiative. They are using the political machine to do what they could have done for themselves. Why have we to wait until the end of 1936 before we give to great masses of people who are giving good service in the shops, conditions that 250,000 employes are already receiving in this country?
§ 5.55 p.m.
§ Colonel GOODMAN
The new Clause, read in conjunction with the Schedule which it is proposed to put at the end of the Bill, completely restores the old Clause 2 which imposed a transitional period of two years before the Bill comes into full operation. I was a Member of the Committee which dealt with the Bill upstairs, and I supported an Amendment to omit the Clause. For what I did then I have been described as a sentimentalist. In the opprobious sense in which the epithet was applied, I have asked myself arid members of my family whether I look as though I were given to sentiment, and in every case the answer was in the negative. If one uses the less-known definition of the words "personal experience," I must admit to being a sentimentalist. I am moved by my own personal experience as a boy of being sent out to work at 10 years of age. I have done, and I intend to do, everything that I can to prevent boys and girls of to-day undergoing the same hardship that I had to suffer as a youngster.
I regard this Bill as a good Bill, but I cannot say the same about the Clause. I regard the Bill as so good that I wished it to come into operation without Clause 2, which set it back for two years. My vote to omit that Clause was governed by that consideration and I only wish that the Minister could see his way to accept the decision of the Standing Committee. It is not sufficiently appreciated that the Bill does not attempt to regulate, restrict or deal in any way with, the hours of 378 adult labour. It only provides for the hours permitted to be worked by juveniles and young persons of from 14 years of age to 18 years of age. I have been charged also with describing those young persons as children. I hardly think that was a fair or accurate interpretation of my statement. Members of the Committee will know that I was speaking at the time of boys and girls of from 11 to 15 years of age, and I challenge hon. Members to describe them other than as children. If the Clause is added to the Bill, those boys and girls will have to work 52 hours a week, and that is much too long for young, growing people. Those of 16 or 17 years of age, even when the Bill comes into full operation, will have to work 48 hours a week plus 50 hours a year overtime. I commend that fact to hon. Members who are at present agitating in favour of a 40-hour adult week, and particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition —whom we wish could be in his place—who is at present advocating a 36-hour working week. If this Clause is passed, the Bill will not come into operation for two and a-half years from now, so I can hardly regard it as a revolutionary proposal.
In spite of all the warnings that we received upstairs of the great upheavals which would follow the Bill being put into operation, I am still unconvinced that the distributive trades are so dependent for their prosperity upon the labour of boys and girls that it is impossible for them to operate this Bill at once and reduce the hours of labour for juveniles to 48 hours per week plus overtime. If that proves to be the fact, all I can say is that the prosperity of the distributive trades has been built up upon a very uncertain foundation. I have been given to understand that, owing to arrangements which have been come to, the Government will not proceed with the Bill unless this Clause be accepted. If that be the case, I shall be compelled to reverse the vote I gave upstairs. I would not like to do anything to jeopardise the passing of the Bill, which will reduce the permitted hours of juveniles not only from 74 per week but, as I know from my own experience, from 85 hours per week in some cases, to 52 or 52½ hours.
I should very much like to see the transition period left out, but, if that is not possible, I suppose we must take 379 what we have got as gracefully as we can. I am fairly satisfied myself, inasmuch as my right hon. Friend who was in charge of the Bill during the discussions upstairs went a considerable way to meet the view that I hold regarding the hours of labour of these young persons, in the Amendment which prohibited the working of overtime by young persons of 14 and 15. I can only say that I am very grateful indeed for that concession, and I feel sure that, if my right hon. Friend could have done so, he would have agreed to the wider proposal, upon which the majority of the Committee decided, to delete Clause 2. I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment which follows this Clause on the Order Paper. I shall not vote against the Clause, but I hope he will accept that Amendment in the spirit of compromise in which it has been put down. The Bill is a good Bill, and the sooner it comes into operation the better for everyone.
§ 6.2 p.m.
§ Mr. THORNE
I am very pleased, Captain Bourne, that you have given the House the opportunity of discussing this Clause and Amendment over a very wide range, because it would be rather difficult for some of us to keep within the four corners of the Clause and the Amendment. I want to supplement what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman). He has said that he was compelled to go to work at 10 years of age, and that he made up his mind that at every possible opportunity he would try to prevent young children having to work so many hours a week. I was in an even worse position than the hon. and gallant Member, because I was compelled to start work before I was seven years of age, in a rope-walk in Birmingham, and, ever since the time when I was able to think about anything at all, I have been determined that, so far as I was concerned, I would never allow young children to go to work for the long hours and very small pay that I had. I cannot understand the persistence of the Government in not putting this Bill into operation before the latter part of 1936. Since the time when I first came into this House, in 1906, many Bills have been passed, but I do not know of any Bill the operation of which has been delayed for two years and a half.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
Yes; there was the Widows' Pensions Act, 1925, one section of which did not come into operation until 1928.
§ Mr. MABANE
There was also the Easter Act, 1928, which has not even yet been brought into operation.
§ Mr. THORNE
I admit that there may be one or two exceptions, but, generally speaking, all the Bills that have been passed through this House have come into operation within a very short period after being passed. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has been saying that it is necessary to have a transition period, but in connection with the early legislation on such matters no such arguments were used, although revolutionary changes were made in the factory laws in those days. In the early part of the nineteenth century, there was a Ten Hours Bill which made a revolutionary change in factory and workshop life, but, although the employers pleaded for an extension, they did not ask for such a very long delay as this. I would remind the hon. Member that in 1889, in the industry with which I am connected, there was a revolutionary change in all parts of the country, the hours of labour being reduced from 12 to eight per day, and all that the employers then required was three months to put the change into operation. I am firmly convinced that there is no need for this long delay, and I think that the shopkeepers and the owners of multiple shops would be well advised to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because, if this Bill is not going to be put into operation until December, 1936—
§ Mr. THORNE
The 48-hour week, anyhow, does not come into operation until 1936, and I am under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that before then there will be a big change in this House. If there is such a change, and if a Labour Government is fortunate enough to get in with a huge majority such as the National Government now have, the employers will not get the same chance as they have now. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Ply- 381 mouth (Viscountess Astor) complimented the Government upon many things that they did, but she did not compliment them about the bad things that they have done, and they have done some very bad things. In fact, I do not know of any good things that they have done. I hope, however, that they w ill make this concession, because I feel convinced that there is no need at all for the delay. The question of reducing the hours of labour of shop assistants and juveniles has been talked about in this House for many years, and the Government have had the time and opportunity to accept a compromise which I think would be satisfactory to all Members of the House. I think my hon. Friend made a bit of a "bloomer" when he said that we were not going to vote against the Clause. Personally, I think that we should have voted against the Clause, in order to show our determination, and then we could have had an opportunity of voting for our Amendment, which I hope will be carried.
§ 6.9 p.m.
§ Mr. MABANE
Perhaps I may be allowed to give one or two facts which may help hon. Members to see why the transition period has been introduced into this Bill, because we have been listening for a long time to general statements by people who appear to have taken no trouble to find out anything about the conditions of the trade of which they are speaking. It would be a good thing to discover, first Of all, what number of juveniles are likely to be affected by this transition Clause. It has been stated by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), that the retail trades have been making such large profits that they could very well accede to the request which they jointly made; but that has nothing to do with this problem at all, because I think I am right in saying that not a single one of the juvenile employés of the large distributive concerns in this country works at the present moment more than 48 hours a week. These concerns, making, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton said. 15 and 20 per cent. per annum on their capital, provide conditions for their employés which are well beyond those of this Bill. The hon. Member himself, in the early part of his speech, said, quite' 382 rightly, that the large department stores and chain stores, and a good many of the other retail distributors in this country, have conditions that are well beyond those of this Bill. Who, then, are going to be affected by the transition period? A very limited number of juvenile employes, and those almost entirely people in the employ of small, one-man retail establishments.
Why is there a reason for this transition period? It is in order that this House should not put out of business at once a very substantial number of these small retailers. The large retail organisations would be very glad to see this transition period wiped out altogether, because it would weight the scales still further on their behalf against the small man. Hon. Members know very well that the small man to-day is having a very hard tussle to keep his head above water; the encroachment of the large department stores, chain stores, and co-operatives, is making it very hard for him to continue. If you are going to make his conditions even worse, you must recognise that you are going to put him out of business. Is this House prepared to do anything of that sort? I really do not think it is. At any rate, I cannot believe that most of the supporters of the National Government would desire to do anything that would operate in a penal manner against these small shopkeepers. Therefore, I suggest that it would he far more sensible to adopt this transition period, in order that these small shopkeepers may make some effort to adjust their businesses—and they are very few in relation to the total—so that they may be able to carry on against the competition with which they' are faced, or, if they cannot, make suitable arrangements for going out of business. Supposing that the House were going to introduce penal legislation which would force a substantial number of the smaller shopkeepers out of business, that would put juveniles out of employment, it would interrupt the continuity of employment, and it would destroy a certain number—not a substantial number. I agree—of small capitalists—
Has not that argument been used every time a Bill to regulate hours has been introduced? Has it not always been said that industry could not stand it, and that people would go out of business?
§ Mr. MABANE
I am not using any argument of that sort at all. I am saying that retail distributors in general would probably be greatly benefited if this transition period were done away with, but it would put out a very few small shopkeepers. If you want to do that, do it, and face the consequences. The retention of this transition period will not affect more than 5 per cent. of the total retail distributors. Is the House prepared to drop it, and put out of business even this small minority of small shopkeepers?
§ 6.13 p.m.
I, also, regret that I find myself in opposition, so far as this Clause is concerned, to my right hon. Friend, because I, too, welcome the Bill. I had not the advantage of being a, Member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, but I have read the whole of the Debates, and I am still rather at a loss to understand why the Government have insisted on keeping this very long transition period. I have been at some pains to look into the records to find when the first Bill was introduced dealing with the regulation of the hours of young persons, and I find that a Bill on somewhat similar lines to the Bill which we are discussing to-day was introduced in the Victorian era, in 1892. I find that the Royal Assent to that Bill was given on 28th June, 1892, and that the Bill had to come into operation on 1st September, 1892, so that therefore there was no transition period provided for in the Victorian era. It seems a little queer to me that in this age, when we are particularly proud of the advancement that we have made in social legislation, we should find ourselves going back behind the Victorian period.
§ Mr. RADFORD
The last words in the Bill are that the Act shall come into operation on 31st December, 1934, so that there is no more delay than in the case that the hon. Member has quoted.
I thought I had made it plain that in the Bill introduced in 1892 there was no provision for a transitional period, and it is a Bill of the same class as this because it regulates the hours of young persons in and about shops to 74 per week. I have looked up the record of that Debate, 'and it is extraordinarily interesting to find that, though in those 384 years there was not quite as much attention paid to social legislation as we pay to-day, there was a great deal of fight put up by certain interests against the introduction of the Bill, but I cannot find that anyone advanced the argument that there should be a period of delay. Curiously enough, the main argument against the Bill was that it would mean the displacement of female labour in favour of male labour. That is an extraordinarily interesting point to remember in 1934 when our main difficulty with regard to unemployment is in relation to finding work for unemployed boys.
I should very much like the Government to say definitely how much negotiation took place between them and the interests concerned before they agreed to put in this transitional period. On looking back to these old records, it seems to me that the point of the transitional period was never suggested, and, consequently, it did not become a matter of dispute on the Floor of the House. I think it is a very great pity that the Government introduced it at all. It is true that there would have been a great deal of pressure, probably, from certain interests against the Bill as a whole. That, of course, is what happened in 1892, but I think it is a little hard that the Government should have found it necessary in these days when, after all, legislation is much more easily acceptable than it was in the Victorian era, to introduce something which was not thought necessary in a period when it must have been much more difficult to accommodate legislation to the particular happenings of the times.
I congratulate the Government sincerely on the Bill, but I find myself placed in a very awkward position in that they have made plain that, if they are defeated on this Clause, they will withdraw the Bill. I try to be perfectly genuine and sincere in voting, and I do not particularly like being placed in that awkward situation. I shall have to think extremely carefully before I make my decision on the subsequent Amendment. I hope the Government will give us a very real reason which will satisfy all of us who are only too anxious that the Bill shall receive all the success that it deserves as a really sound social measure.
§ 6.21 p.m.
§ Mr. LEVY
I should like to be allowed to give my view as to why this transi- 385 tional period is necessary. Juveniles can be divided into two classes. There are the 14 to 16 and the 16 to 18 categories. In the first, no overtime will be allowed at all, but it will be allowed in the second. Only 50 hours per year will be allowed. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has extolled the virtues of the co-operative societies, but Mr. A. V. Alexander wrote this letter:We therefore urge that the limit of 52 hours overtime in a calendar year, and not more than three hours in any week, should be the maximum for young persons, subject to suitable provision being made for abnormal conditions.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
Will the hon. Member read the declaration in the same letter to the effect that the co-operative movement was urging a 48-hour working week?
§ Mr. LEVY
The Bill is going to allow 50 hours' overtime, and the co-operative society definitely asks for more. It is obvious that, if the Bill came into operation at once, a number of the 14 to 16 category would be put out of employment at once. I believe that these young people who have taken up this vocation as their walk in life should be allowed to continue in the vocation which they have adopted. The 14 to 16 class will grow up into the 16 to 18 category and, therefore, the Bill under the transitional period will be no hardship to them but will be to their benefit. Hon. Members opposite want all these extraordinary re- strictions for juveniles. They would like to see juveniles from 14 to 16 prohibited from working at all, and, if they could prevent their employment, they would be able to say, "There is nothing for them to do except walk the streets. Why not keep them at school?" These young people are in this particular employment, and we do not want to see them discharged from it.
I want to see this transitional period until 1936 when they will have grown 386 out of the first category into the second, and those who come into this class of employment afterwards will know the position in which they find themselves. I have no doubt that employers will bring in mechanisation. They will bring in light motor delivery, vans to do the work, probably, of four or five of these errand boys. A number of young people who are now employed will not be employed if the Bill comes in at once. I ask the Government to stick rigidly to the Amendment and I hope I have shown the need for the transitional period. It is not a question of the shopkeepers themselves requiring a longer period to put their house in order. No one could believe that. I want to give time for these young people to grow out of the 14 to 16 into the 16 to 18 category.
§ 6.27 p.m.
§ Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS
I have sat here and listened with amazement at the arguments that have been put forward from the other side, and my mind has gone back 42 years. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), I am going to speak from experience. In those days I never saw daylight in the winter except on Sundays. I went down the pit in the morning in the dark and came up in the dark, and from tea time on Sunday until the following Saturday late in the afternoon I never saw any daylight. The same arguments were put across the Floor of the House when we wanted shorter hours in the mining industry as have been put across to-day.
I have not heard the Home Secretary say that, if this Clause is defeated, he will withdraw the Bill, but he must have told some of his friends. He said this was not a party Bill, but it was a social Measure. If it be a social Measure and is necessary, it is necessary now. If there be an evil in the industry, why do you want to cuddle it for two and a half years? The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is alarmed about the small trader and argues that he must have time to get ready. That is all bunkum. The small trader can get ready to-morrow morning if he has only one employé. It is the big trader who wants to get ready if anyone does. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) says that, if you put this into operation now, there will be a great industrial collapse. 387 You cannot afford to put it into operation at once, he said, because of the small trader. All social legislation in this House, when it has meant progress, has always been met by the bogey of the widow and orphan, and the same sort of thing has been put across the Floor of the House to-day.
Mr. MA BANE
Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that I said that if the Bill were put into operation at once this industry would collapse? I said nothing of the sort.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
The hon. Gentleman made a statement that some of the small shopkeepers would not be able to carry on, and if they were unable to carry on would not that be collapsing? The small trader does not collapse because of the co-operative societies, but because of the multiple shops. The majority of small traders are themselves members of co-operative societies. If the Whips were not put on—and I see that there is a lot of running about here—I believe, in view of the arguments which have been put across the Floor by supporters of the Government, hon. Members, if they voted according to their conscience, would again vote for the deletion of the Clause. The hon. Member for Plaistow said that he was prepared to compromise at 1935. I am sorry that there is any possibility of compromise. I make no bones about the fact that electors in my division asked me to support the Bill. They said, "George, back the Bill as far as you can, and get it on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible." I am only one in the House, but I hope to vote according to my conscience. My vote will count as much as that of the Home Secretary.
I hope that the Home Secretary, when he replies, will not turn a deaf ear to the Members of his own side. The hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman) said that in his heart and conscience he was free, and that he hoped to vote against the new Clause. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) states definitely that she is going into the Lobby to vote against the Government. I wish she always did so. I think that when the noble Lady threatens to go into the Lobby against the Government she almost always turns into the Government Lobby. She has 388 threatened to go into the Lobby against the Government to-day, and, if there is a Division, I hope that she will carry out her threat, and that the Clause will not be carried.
§ 6.34 p.m.
§ Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY
We have been sitting here for nearly two hours, and there has been one speech against the Clause. We have had a certain amount of dialectics. Hon. Members above the Gangway have been dealing with certain arguments about the cooperative movement which I do not think have very much bearing upon the Clause. The only speech against the Clause was made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). He is really conducting the Bill unofficially from a certain point of view, and he put forward the argument that the only people who are to be affected by the Clause 'are a few small shopkeepers in the country. It really does not affect the co-operative movement and the large retail and departmental stores. The reason why he and his friends are so anxious about this matter is because of their solicitude for the small shopkeeper. I remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. Member said, I think rather unwisely, that it was a Bill to kill the small shopkeeper, or, at any rate, he said that it would be interpreted as such. Let us know exactly where we are. If that is the main and substantial reason why a number of us are to be asked to vote in favour of putting back the operation of the Bill for 2½ years, it is not a good enough reason. If, on the other hand, the Government have made arrangements with various parties conditional upon those 2½ years, that may be a good reason. If they have made such an agreement, we ought to know all about it.
I have not taken a sudden interest in this Clause. I have been interested in this problem for the last 12 years. Among the things we care about is the dovetailing of continuation schools into the ordinary working hours, and there is an overwhelming opinion in this country at the moment, not particularly for raising the school-leaving age, but for dovetailing work and education between the ages of 14 and 18. Certain big firms are doing this already, and they would like to see others doing it. You cannot 389 put that into operation if you retain this Clause. Something might be said for the provision if it had relation to the steel industry, and it took that industry 2½ years to reorganise and to close down work, say, in Scotland and open other works, or to a big industry such as the -cotton industry, but it is a question of a few small employers. I know that in East London they employ young people for long hours. They are a comparatively small number of employers, and therefore why put off the good for a period of 21 years because of this small, bad element? Unless we can have a little more justification or really good reason given, I am sure that many of us who are only too anxious to see the Bill pass into law will find it very difficult to vote with the Government on this occasion.
§ 6.39 p.m.
Sir J. GILMOURI
I think that perhaps the House is now ready to come to a decision on this problem. I have listened to the Debate with close interest. and I want to say at once that I have been guided, in asking the House to reintroduce this Clause, mainly by the fact that the Select Committee which inquired into this problem indicated that, in their judgment., the period should certainly be delayed. The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) inferred that I was going back to the pre-Victorian age, and she quoted from an Act which was passed in 1892 dealing with a similar kind of problem to that with which we are dealing at the present time. May I remind the hon. Lady, and I think it is right to remind the House, that all that the Act of 1892 did was to make permanent what bad been passed in 1886. They were not on that occasion imposing directly on the industry concerned something to which the industry was not already accustomed and knew that they would have to operate.
In a problem of this kind the House will realise that when we are making a fresh and a very far-reaching improvement, affecting industry and the youth of this country, in which we ask for the cooperation of a great number of varied interests, it is desirous that we should carry with us all the goodwill that we can in order to have the least possible 390 friction in administration. But when people talk to me as if this Bill is to be totally postponed for two years, what nonsense it is. The great, main principles and matters of importance come into operation at once. Hon. Members must admit that when they talk about the excellent position of the big co-operative societies and the good employer, there is nothing by reason of this postponement which will prevent the continuance of that position, and their example being followed by other people.
On the other hand, what are we doing? It has been stated more than once that in this matter it is not a question of 50 hours, but of 80 and 90 hours, and under this Bill at once all those hours come down to 52. I think that in those circumstances the Government, having had for a long time the closest negotiations with all those interests—though I will not admit for a moment that I gave any direct undertaking to those people—realise that there is such a thing as good faith in the method with which you carry on negotiations with people with whom you are dealing. I beg of the House to believe me when I say that, anxious as I am, and as is every Member of the House, to see this advance made, it will be to the ultimate advantage of every one with whom we are concerned, that this House should consent to a postponement for two years, and I must ask them so to do.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, if the Clause be rejected, the Bill will be dropped? Is that so?
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 1, to leave out "twenty-seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six," and to insert "twenty-eighth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five."
§ According to arrangement, I move the Amendment without speaking upon it.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 59.361
|Division No. 328.]||AYES||[4.50 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Peake, Osbert|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Pearson, William G.|
|Allen. Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Peat, Charles U.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Hales, Harold K.||Penny. Sir George|
|Asks, Sir Robert William||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||Percy, Lord Eustace|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Petherick, M.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Harris, Sir Percy||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst's)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Hartland, George A.||Potter, John|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Radford, E. A.|
|Belt, Sir Alfred L.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ramsbotham, Herwald|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Hepworth, Joseph||Rankin, Robert|
|Bernays, Robert||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Blindell, James||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Hornby, Frank||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Horobin, Ian M.||Renwick, Major Gustav A.|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Horsbrugh, Florence||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Rickards, George William|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Robinson, John Roland|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Iveagh, Countess of||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Runge. Norah Cecil|
|Burnett, John George||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffieid, B'tside)|
|Butler, Richard Austen||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Rutherford. Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Knight, Holford||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Knox, Sir Alfred||Scone, Lord|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Selley, Harry R.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Law Sir Alfred||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Leckie, J. A.||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Slater, John|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Levy, Thomas||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Lewis, Oswald||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.||Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Crossley, A. C.||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Loftus, Pierce C.||Stones, James|
|Davison. Sir William Henry||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lyons. Abraham Montagu||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.|
|Dickle, John P.||Mabane, William||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Doran, Edward||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Drewe, Cedric||McCorquodale, M. S.||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Titchfleid, Major the Marquess of|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||McKie, John Hamilton||Todd, Lt.-Cot. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|Eimley, Viscount||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Tree, Ronald|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Gibson, Charles Granville||Mitcheson, G. G.||Watt, Captain George Steven H.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Wayland, Sir William A|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Wells. Sydney Richard|
|Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.||Horsing, Adrian C.||White. Henry Graham|
|Goff, Sir Park||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Goldie, Noel B.||Morrison, William Shepherd||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Moss, Captain H. J.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Nunn, William||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. [...]||Womersley, Sir Walter|
|Graves, Marjorie||Orr Ewing, I. L.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Palmer, Francis Noel||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grimston, R. V.||Patrick, Collin M.||Captain Austin Hudson and Major George Davies.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)||Maxton, James|
|Banfield, John William||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Milner, Major James|
|Batey, Joseph||Groves, Thomas E.||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Buchanan, George||Grundy, Thomas W.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Cape, Thomas||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Jenkins, Sir William||Thorne, William James|
|Cove, William G.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||West, F. R.|
|Daggar, George||Lawson, John James||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Leonard, William||Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Logan, David Gilbert||Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Davies, Stephen Owen||Lunn, William||Wilmot, John|
|Edwards, Charles||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Gardner, Benjamin Walter||McEntee, Valentine L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Mainwaring, William Henry||Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.|
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 329.]||AYES||[6.43 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Grimston, R. V.||Pearson, William G.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Penny, Sir George|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Petherick, M.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist's)|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Potter, John|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Procter. Major Henry Adam|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Haslam, Sir John (Bo[...]on)||Pybus, Sir Percy John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Radford, E. A.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hepworth, Joseph||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Ramsbotham, Herwald|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Ramsden, Sir Eugene|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Hore-Bellsha, Leslie||Rankin, Robert|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Hornby, Frank||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)||Horobin, Ian M.||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.|
|Belt, Sir Alfred L.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Reid. William Allan (Derby)|
|Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)||Renwick. Major Gustav A.|
|Blindell, James||Hume. Sir George Hopwood||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hurd, Sir Percy||Rickards, George William|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Robinson, John Roland|
|Bracken, Brendan||Iveagh, Countess of||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, west)||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Ker, J. Campbell||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)||Knox, Sir Alfred||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Law, Sir Alfred||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Leckie, J. A.||Scone, Lord|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Leech. Dr. J. W.||Selley, Harry R.|
|Carver, Major William H.||Lees-Jones, John||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Levy, Thomas||Shute, Colonel J. J.|
|Christle, James Archibald||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Liewellin, Major John J.||Skelton, Archibald Noel|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Slater, John|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Loftus, Pierce C.||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Cooke, Douglas||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Mabane, William||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Stones, James|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||McCorgundale, M. S.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Crossley, A. C.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||McKie, John Hamilton||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Thompson, Sir Luke|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J A. F.||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Doran, Edward||Magnay, Thomas||Thorp. Linton Theodore|
|Drewe, Cedric||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|Duckworth, George A. V||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Train, John|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Dunglass. Lord||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Eastwood, John Francis||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Waterhouse. Captain Charles|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Mitcheson, G. G.||Watt, Captain George Steven H.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurest||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Moreing, Adrian C.||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||Morrison, William Shepherd||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Moss, Captain H. J.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Munro, Patrick||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Womersley, Sir Walter|
|Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.||Nunn, William||Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Goff. Sir Park||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Goldie, Noel B.||Orr Ewing, I. L.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Palmer, Francis Noel||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Patrick, Colin M.||Major George Davies and Commander Southby.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Banfield, John William||Buchanan, George|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Berneys, Robert||Clarke, Frank|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Cocks, Frederick Seymour|
|Cove, William G.||Grundy, Thomas W.||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Crippe, Sir Stafford||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Curry, A. C.||Harris, Sir Percy||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Dagger, George||Janner, Barnett||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Jenkins, Sir William||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Thorne, William James|
|Davies, Stephen Owen||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dickie, John P.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Dobble, William||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||West, F. R.|
|Edwards, Charles||Lawson, John James||White, Henry Graham|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Leonard, William||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Lunn, William||Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||McEntee, Valentine L.||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Wilmot. John|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)||Milner, Major James||Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Parkinson, John Allen|
§ Clause added to the Bill.