CLAUSE 2.—(Overcrowding.) (Hansard, 16 June 1937)

Colonel Sandeman Allen
I beg to move in page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert: and, where a room contains a gallery, the gallery shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if it were partitioned off from the remainder of the room and formed a separate room. When an Amendment similar to this was moved in Committee, objection was taken to it on the ground that the wording was not sufficiently clear. I think the House will agree that the present Amendment is not open to any objection on that ground. It seems right that where sufficient cubic space is available, a gallery should be allowed to count as separate accommodation. Under the wording of this Amendment neither the gallery nor the workroom itself can be overcrowded. It also shuts out any possibility of the construction of dummy galleries in order to get more people into a room, and so overcrowd that room. It is a commonsense Amendment, intended to enable a gallery in a large workshop to be used in the proper way. I understand that it has been the practice of the Home Office in the past to treat galleries in the way here proposed, and I trust that the House will find my proposal acceptable.

§ Mr. Hepworth
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd)
This is a straightforward Amendment, and those Members who were present in the Standing Committee will remember that we discussed the point there. It was explained by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary that, in dealing with the problem of galleries as part of the technical question of calculating cubic space in workrooms, the proposal of the Amendment was already the administrative practice of the Home Office. It is not of great importance to us whether we continue it as an administrative practice, or insert a provision to this effect 392 in the Bill, and we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Kelly
I suggest that this matter should have further consideration. One can visualise a factory with a gallery running right round which might be used for the storage of materials to such an extent that it ought not to be treated in the way proposed by the Amendment in relation to the calculation of cubic space. This Amendment might prove a dangerous addition to the proposals already in the Measure. I hope the Under-Secretary will give further consideration to the subject before agreeing to accept a proposal which might, possibly, have the effect of making the Bill worse than it is.

§ Mr. Lloyd
The hon. Member is on a false point. The question of the storage of material would arise, whether it was a gallery or anything else which was in question. It has to be taken into account in any case. There is no complication arising out of the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ridley
I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to leave out from the beginning to "there," in line 37, and to insert: Unless the inspector for the district otherwise allows. The circumstances in which this Amendment is considered desirable can, I think, be simply and briefly stated. Clause 2 deals with overcrowding. It lays down specifically the number of cubic feet per person which must be observed in order to avoid overcrowding. It is, therefore, a perfectly easy thing for the employer himself to determine how many people, within the provisions of the Act, may be employed within the factory or in the room within the factory. The Amendment would have the effect of requiring the employer, having made that simple calculation, to post in the factory and the workrooms a notice which would state for the benefit of the employés the number of employés who might be engaged there at one time. As the Clause stands that notice may not be posted unless the inspector requires that it shall be posted.
Two factors should be taken into consideration, if the Amendment is not incorporated. One is the tremendous number of workrooms everyone of which would have to be examined by the inspector before the inspector could determine 393 whether or not a notice shall be posted. How long that process will take it is impossible to say, but it will take a very long time indeed. That means that between the operating date of the Act and the actual date of the inspection by the inspector, there might be wholesale breaches of these overcrowding provisions. The Amendment would reverse the process of the Clause. It is quite proper to require an employer to post a notice as to how many people can be employed in a room unless for some exceptional reason the inspector allows him not to post it.

§ Mr. Jagger
I beg to second the Amendment.
I would remind the Home Secretary that we have followed the principle of letting the workpeople know unmistakably what their position is under the Trade Boards Act and other Acts.

§ Mr. Lloyd
Originally in the Bill, having in mind the largely increasing number of modern workshops where the standard was so much greater than the legal requirements, we had come to the conclusion that it might be as well to provide for the notice being posted where the inspector thought it necessary, but having considered the points that the hon. Member has made to-day, and having regard to the great importance of work-people knowing what protection is available to them under the Acts, we have decided to accept the Amendment.