HC Deb 13 June 1939 vol 348 cc1204-23
Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 13, line 29, to leave out from "of," to the second "the," in line 30, and to insert "the approved standard for all or any of."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Tinker

I rise to oppose this Amendment for the purpose of getting some information on a subject about which I have written to the Lord Privy Seal. This Amendment makes some alteration in the wording of the Clause, and altogether it makes a change in the Clause itself. In letters I have received from factory owners they have asked me what is their position when notices are served on them and they are not financially ready to provide the shelters which they are called upon to provide? They have asked me whether there is any way by which, under this Bill, certain financial measures can be given to relieve them temporarily. If they are not ready, and can satisfy the Government that they have not got the money, is there any way in which they can be excused for the time being or can get loans to get them over the difficulty? I agree that it is a rather difficult point but I would like to know the position of these people

8.4 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I am very glad to comply with the hon. Gentleman's request for information, but I am not at all certain whether the information that I can give will be satisfactory to him. The position is this: An owner has a definite obligation under this Bill. It is an obligation which he is called upon to discharge in exactly the same way as he is called upon to discharge other obligations in regard to the payment of rates, insurance premiums or anything else. If he is in financial difficulties and cannot conveniently find the money to discharge those obligations, I am afraid that the Bill does not provide any means to help him. The view which the Government took was that it was quite impracticable to find any way of helping out people in that position by way of loan from public funds. If the credit of an employer is unfortunately such that he cannot find the money required through the ordinary channels, then the provision of that money by way of loan would be tantamount to a grant.

Mr. Boulton

Would my right hon. Friend say, in the event of the man not having the money and not providing the shelter, what is the position of the owner and what is the position of the worker?

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

I am afraid that I have not followed the right hon. Gentleman's explanation at all. It is not a question of whether the answer is satisfactory or not; I am afraid I do not know what it means. Here the Clause imposes an obligation upon persons to do something. The something which it imposes on them to do involves a capital expenditure. I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman's comparison with rates and insurance premiums, which are periodical payments borne as part of the overhead charges of the undertakings. They bear no sort of relation—and I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman invites us to compare these things—with the obligation to provide at short notice an additional capital outlay. It is all very well for him to say that if the credit of the institution is not good enough to enable it to borrow that amount, then the Government cannot give a grant, but does he propose to leave it there? He cannot do that, surely. Does it means that if the institution cannot raise the money and the community cannot help it, then the workers in that particular place are to remain unprotected, or does it mean that the institution, which may have been a perfectly paying institution but for this new capital charge placed upon it, is to close down? I quite appreciate that there are many difficulties in it from either point of view, but I suggest that the Minister cannot leave it here. It is not enough for him to say, "He must raise the money." I think the House, and certainly the country, will want to know what is to happen then.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I cannot imagine any Socialist of the most advanced type standing at that Box and talking about the small capitalist in more callous terms than those which the right hon. Gentleman has just used. I know that he told us once that he was not a Conservative, or in fact a politician at all, and that he holds no political views. I cannot imagine what party would admit him after that speech, if he applied to it. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) would see that he did not get into the Conservative party, and we should be alarmed about the effect on our electoral fortunes if we admitted him after that speech. The point that was put by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is a very practical point. There are a number of firms in this country who, during the difficult periods of the past few years in the part of the country represented by my hon. Friend and myself, have just been able to keep their heads above water. They are carrying on perfectly reputable, useful businesses, some of them quite essential for the conduct of a war by this country. Some of these firms represent a very desirable dispersal of industry in the country. Many of these firms may be able to survive where one huge factory in a bombardment may have such a series of injuries as to be incapable of carrying on. It is desirable that these firms should not be thrown out of existence by the sudden demand being made on them by the Government in this matter.

I understand that the answer of the Minister is that if they cannot get credit in the ordinary market they will have to disappear. Speaking for a capitalist Government, that is the kind of sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman extended to the small capitalist confronted with this difficulty. I think the Minister ought to recognise that the demands in this Bill are entirely new demands to be made on any section of the community. Hitherto National Defence has been a matter of national taxation. For the first time in the Act of 1937 we made National Defence dependent for its financing upon something other than the national Exchequer when we threw part of the cost on the local authorities. Now we are proposing to throw this expense on those people who may not be able to secure the necessary capital to enable them to carry on. I can well understand the concern of the small firms in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh when they are faced with this demand. Is it not possible for the Government to do something that will enable these persons to have, in suitable cases, some financial assistance or a loan which they could repay over a term of years, which would enable them to carry on? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can expect that on any side of the House we could be content with, the answer he has given.

8.13 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson

Could I raise another point of very vital importance to those of us who are Members for constituencies in the distressed areas? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are a large number of firms in the various distressed areas who are working on credit and financed by the Special Areas Commissioner. If you take the trading estates of Treforest and Team Valley, there are a number of firms which will come under the provisions of this Bill. They have more than 50 employés, so that they must come under it. I think the Minister had not in his mind that these are Special Areas, when he said that if they have not got credit he was sorry but the Government could not help it. There is no doubt about their being bona fide firms, because they have been investigated thoroughly by the Special Commissioner's Department before any credit at all was given to them. The difficulty is that the mere fact that they are working on Special Areas grants and Commissioner's grants is evidence, not that they are not bona fide, but that they cannot get credit in the ordinary way. They have been encouraged to set up in the Special Areas and credit is provided for them because they do not come under the Minister's definition of being able to get credit in the ordinary way. They are building up a goodwill and business and performing a useful function, but if the whole weight of providing air-raid shelters is placed on them it may make all the difference between their going on and of losing what money they have, and having to close down. I am not exaggerating, they are working on the very narrowest of margins, some of those who are doing the best work are working on the narrowest of margins. The difficulty, of course, is that nearly all these firms are working in specially dangerous areas like the great munitions area on Tyneside, so that they will have to provide shelter, and provide effective shelter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown)

I must point out that the Debate is getting rather wide of the Amendment. The Amendment we are discussing is whether we should have "approved type" or "approved standard." This is really a very narrow Amendment.

Miss Wilkinson

I was coming to the question of "approved type." The Minister himself raised the question as to whether they will get the money for an approved type of shelter, and the question is whether they are going to get the money by an extra grant from the Special Areas Commissioner. If they do there are other areas which will complain of the competition which will arise from this help. The Minister has not explained that, and I hope he will give us some idea as to how these firms will provide this shelter.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. McEntee

I have a good deal of misgiving as to the suggested alteration in the wording of the Clause. The Clause says that notice shall be given by a mines inspector, a factory inspector or a local authority. Originally, the Clause said: to provide air-raid shelter of such approved type as may be specified in the notice. In other words, it is the duty of the factory inspector in the one case, the mines inspector in another case, and the local authority in another case, to specify in the notice the exact nature of the requirements for the provision of air-raid shelter. The words "as may be specified in the notice" are to be struck out. Frankly, if I was a factory owner I should wonder what it all meant. Looking at the examples that are given in the code does not help us very much. I speak as one who knows something about the building industry, and I am wondering what, if I were an owner of a factory and knowing what I do about the industry, shall be expected to do. Under the original wording it had to be specified in the notice what I was expected to do, but under the new wording that is not so. It says of "the approved standard." What is the "approved standard"? It may be the code, or something in the code, but which of the examples in the code? It may be said "any in the code," but it might be that none of them would fit the circumstances of my particular factory or workshop. You would then have to do what I think you will ultimately have to do, and what was your original intention, that is, you will have to specify the exact type of shelter you want me to make in the factory. I honestly think the right hon. Gentleman will have to put back into the Clause words which will make it perfectly clear to the owner of a factory the exact nature of the work he is desired to do.

I do not think that the Clause, either with or without the words, will ever work. I do not think Factory Inspectors will be able to carry out with any degree of efficiency the work that is imposed on them by the Clause. They have not got the staff, and they will not be able to get the staff. I cannot understand why a local authority is to be responsible for commercial buildings and the factory inspector for factory buildings. In all cases the local authority is the authority, and the factory inspector does not come in except for seeing that the machinery is all right and that sanitary accommodation is provided. I ask that more precise directions shall be given to the owner of a factory which will enable him to understand what is meant by "approved standard." It is not at all clear, and the suggested Amendment will make the Clause much worse and more difficult to understand.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

The Minister in presenting the Amendment said that it was only a drafting Amendment. But there is a question of principle involved, and the Clause will bear very heavily, may be of necessity, on small factory owners.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have explained before that that is out of order on this Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher

The Clause reads: a notice in writing requiring him to provide air-raid shelter of such approved type as may be specified in the notice. That is to be changed, and the words "such approved type as may be specified in the notice" are to be replaced by "the approved standard for all or any of." Let us consider the words as they appear in the Clause. Is it not possible that the inspector responsible for issuing the notice to a given factory might take into consideration, along with other factors, the financial position of the factory owner, when he was specifying the approved type of shelter in the notice? That is possible under the Clause as it is, but if the Amendment is accepted, then willy-nilly a type is imposed upon the factory owner whether or not he is capable of meeting the demand which that type imposes upon him. it is important to note that it is often said by hon. Members that this House has to look after the interests of the small man. I wish that hon. Members would make a very careful study of Marx's analysis of capitalist society.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is now raising a subject which does not arise on the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Gallacher

I am drawing attention to the fact that this Amendment can strike a very heavy blow at small factory owners and can put them out of business. In reply to ray hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), the Minister was utterly callous in his attitude towards the small factory owners who will be affected by the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should give some consideration to this matter and give us some explanation, and not tell us that this is simply a drafting Amendment. It is the sort of drafting Amendment that can draft crowds of small factory owners into the bankruptcy court. The Minister said that if they cannot get credit, they will get nothing from the Government—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member's remarks are not in order on this Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher

I will not pursue the matter further. I want only to draw attention to the fact that the Amendment is not simply a drafting Amendment, but one that may be very vital; and I want especially to draw attention to the fact that it would be a good thing if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, before discussing matters of this kind, would study the economic side, and then he would appreciate that he is being used in bringing forward this Amendment for the big monopolies that are anxious to wipe out the small factory owners. That is what the Amendment means.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

It is very difficult for me to reply to all the points that have been raised because of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with which, I may say, I profoundly agree. The Amendment does not raise the financial issues that have been put—

Mr. Silverman

On a point of Order. I do not know whether you recall, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when the Lord Privy Seal had moved the Amendment, he was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who raised a point about finding the consequent finance, basing that point on the argument that the Amendment increases the liability of the person on whom the liability is imposed. The Lord Privy Seal gave an answer in which he discussed that point, and no objection was taken; and I discussed the right hon. Gentleman's answer. I hope your Ruling on the point of Order is not so narrow as to preclude the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from dealing with the points that have been raised in the Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

As I had only just come into the Chair, I did not realise what the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr Tinker)said. The hon. Member for Leigh raised a point that was out of order, but I did not stop him then. I cannot allow the discussion to go forward now, having informed the House that it is out of order to discuss these financial problems.

Miss Wilkinson

May I submit that the Lord Privy Seal, in his reply, raised an entirely new point that had not been discussed on the Clause, and that was as to who will provide the finance for these types of shelter with which the Amendment is concerned if the man cannot afford to do so himself. The Lord Privy Seal gave the Government policy, and we had to take it up, as it is a matter of importance, and affects a large number of our constituents. May I suggest that, as the Lord Privy Seal was allowed to say that and as, in point of fact, we have discussed it, you should allow the Minister to reply briefly to the points that have been raised following on the Minister's statement?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No. I am afraid I cannot. I allowed the Lord Privy Seal to reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) suggested that the matter has in point of fact been discussed, but I would remind her that two wrongs do not make a right. I suggest that if hon. Members want to raise the point again, they should do so on the Third Reading.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I will endeavour to reply to the points which I conceive to be relevant to the Amendment. The Amendment is a drafting Amendment and is really consequential on what has previously been agreed to. The reason for the substitution of the phrase "approved standard" for "approved type" has been fully explained in the past and agreed to by the Committee and the House as being a better way of framing the code. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) gave the reason when he said that it is impossible to set out a number of types and to be sure that one has exhaustively described the types that would suit the necessities of any particular industry.

Mr. McEntee

The Clause as it is states: such approved type as may be specified in the notice. If it is specified, everybody knows what it is, but with the new wording of the Amendment, nobody knows what it is.

Mr. Morrison

This alteration is consequential upon what has already been agreed to, namely, that the words "approved standard" are preferable to "approved type." The other point about the phrase "all or any "has also been discussed. As the Bill stands, the notice that is issued must apply to providing shelter for all the persons; surely, it is sensible, if shelter already exists for some of those persons, that the notice shall apply only to the additional shelter that is required. That is all there is to the Amendment. I hope that hon. Members will agree that I was right in saying that it is consequential upon matters that have been discussed already. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West suggested that the factory inspectors could not discharge these duties which it is proposed to place upon them. I hold the contrary view, and so does my right hon. Friend, and I hope that when the hon. Member looks into this question he will feel that the difficulties have been somewhat exaggerated. In a great number of cases the occupiers of factories and mines and the owners of commercial buildings will, with the assistance of their own skilled staffs and of the men who work about the premises, and who well know as much about them as any factory inspector, be able to do the work themselves, and there will be no question of an inspector having to serve a notice. In the few cases where it may be necessary to serve a notice I think the factory inspectorate will be equipped with a sufficient staff to do this work.

Amendment agreed to.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 13, line 34, after "shall," to insert: specify with such particularity as the inspector or authority thinks reasonably necessary the nature and situation of the shelter, and shall specify the number of persons that the shelter is to be constructed to accommodate. (3) Any such notice shall also. Here we are dealing with cases, which we hope will be very few in number, in which it is necessary to compel a recalcitrant owner to execute works by means of serving a notice upon him, and, of course, there is a penalty attaching to failure to comply with the notice. The point of the Amendment is this, that as we are providing for a penalty for failure to comply with it, the notice ought to be drawn up with sufficient particularity to let the man know exactly what is required of him; it should not be merely a general notice requiring him to provide shelter for so many men. I think the House will realise that as there are penal consequences an Amendment in these terms is really in the interests of justice.

8.38 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson

Can I have an answer to the point which I raised previously, if it should now be in order? The Minister has laid it down that all these provisions as to the form of notice are necessary in view of the penal consequences which may follow a failure to comply with the notice, and surely, therefore, I may have an answer to the point which I outlined in a speech which was, unfortunately, sufficiently on the border-line of order for the Minister to be able to avoid replying to it then. I took the case of a man in one of the distressed areas who has been served with a notice threatening him with penalties and I asked the Minister where such a man could go for assistance if he found himself in the position of having to close down his works, which the Government had subsidised, and if he had been told, on approaching the Government, that they could not pay for the work to be executed.

Mr. R. Morgan

What I am particularly concerned about is what is to happen to the employés in factories or shops if the owners cannot afford to provide shelter. Will the onus of making provision for shelter fall upon the local authority if the owner cannot afford it?

8.40 p.m.

Mr. McEntee

I think we must have some further information before this Clause can be allowed to pass, even with this Amendment. I am not opposing the Amendment as such, but the right hon. Gentleman said its purpose was to compel a recalcitrant owner to do something reasonable, and of course the question will arise, What is reasonable? I once worked for a firm with whose circumstances I was well acquainted, and if a duty like this had been imposed on that firm it would definitely have been put out of business. If it had been a matter of finding £20 they could not have put up the money. We are told that the notice will state with particularity that the owner is to do certain things. There must be a great number of firms who will be quite unable to do this work that is going to be specified with particularity, and if they fail to do it then a fine will follow. That will not improve matters. To fine a man £50 when he has nothing does not improve his position. The inevitable result of all this will be that the man will go out of business and all the men employed by him will lose their jobs. The Clause does not allow the possibility, where the money cannot be found, of arrangements being made under which the owner and his employés might agree to do nothing and to take the risk rather than have the business shut down. Otherwise, the end of it will be that the men will lose their jobs, the employer will go out of business and no air-raid shelter will be provided for anyone. Surely the Government cannot think it is right to leave things like that.

I have a sense of justice and fair play, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some further consideration to this matter and to provide some outlet for employers who simply cannot do the work. It is no use saying to an employer, "If you cannot do it you will be fined £50," because that only makes the position worse for him. Why allow a Clause like this to go through compelling an employer to do something which everybody knows it is impossible for him to do? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow such a Clause to go forth from this House, because it will reflect upon our sense of decency and our ability to see things in reason. It will simply put out of business a large number of owners of factories and small commercial undertakings, and throw out of work a considerable number of men who may or may not find employment with some other firm which is sufficiently wealthy to provide air-raid shelter.

Mr. Dodd

This Amendment provides that when notice to do this work is served upon an owner it will specify with particularity the work which he is required to undertake, and that places upon the individual concerned a very definite responsibility. There will be nothing vague about the notice. I think there is a very great deal in the case put up by the Socialist defenders of the small capitalists on the other side of the House, and I feel that the difficulties which will arise will be much more widespread than the Minister realises. There arc in this country a vast number of concerns which are always very close to the limit of their finances. We are imposing penalties on a man for not undertaking work which he may find it impossible for him to do. In that case what is to happen to the people he is employing? Not only does the owner find himself unable to undertake the work, but he is faced with a financial penalty which only makes his position still more grave. In actual fact it may cause the condition to arise, in certain parts of the country, that works are definitely closed down not only because they cannot undertake the work, but because there is a penalty for not undertaking the work. This is an extremely important matter.

There is another point which I raised with the Lord Privy Seal at an earlier stage of the Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that his Department would not look upon this matter too stringently and he hoped that the banks would be recommended to make finance available as far as they could. I imagine that the net result is that the banks have said, "This is a responsibility of the Government," and that they have thrust it back upon the Government. Here are the small traders, many of whom render a very useful service, faced with a position in which, because they have not the necessary finance to undertake the work, may have the people whom they employ either thrown out of work or who will suffer from having no protection if air raids take place.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor

The position is very serious. Hon. Members have been speaking of the small employers in distressed areas and I would draw attention to that matter as well. There is a distressed area in my division. The mines are closed down, but a number of small men have opened small enterprises and have been able to engage a number of men, to whom it has been a blessing because of the employment. I feel sure that these small employers are in no position to carry out any specifications particularised in the way asked in the Bill, and it means, if they are not able to carry them out, that they will be liable to a fine of £100 and of £50 for each day on which they fail to complete a scheme. It means simply that the men who have started these small enterprises and are engaging a number of men in a small way, are finished and out of business and that the men they have been employing are again to be without hope. I am just as much concerned about the areas that are not distressed. We have urged the Government for a long time to do something about the location of industry, and while we all welcome trading estates in the distressed areas we must recognise that they have an effect on industries in areas that are not distressed. The Government cannot allow this matter to rest where it is.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Higgs

The case that small men will be put out of business has been grossly exaggerated. I am surprised at hon. Members opposite taking that view. They seem to have altogether forgotten the position of the workers. To get a true conception of the matter we have to ask what the Bill will cost the employers.

Mr. R. J. Taylor

Do you know?

Mr. Higgs

I suppose, taking it all into account, that it would cost about 1 per cent, or one-half per cent, of their capital. Air-raid shelters would probably cost anything from 14s. to £3 per person, depending upon the size of the land on which they are to be erected. It takes about £200 to £300 of capital per person employed, and therefore 1 per cent, is not going to put people out of business. The operation of the Factory Acts costs the employer a sum far greater than the cost of this Bill, by the provision of various fences and safety precautions that he has to supply, as well as dust-extracting fans and so on. The cost of insurance is greater than the cost of the Bill will be. The insurance required by the employer is probably in the neighbourhood of £1 or £1 10s. per week—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is giving certain illustrations but he is going a long way from the Clause.

Mr. Higgs

I accept your Ruling, Sir, but I have practically said all I had to say, and I conclude by saying that the working of the Bill will not put any sound firm out of business.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Messer

I do not accept the figures that have been given, but I shall not risk coming under the ban of your Ruling by following the line of argument of the hon. Member. In point of fact, the hon. Member could not prove for one moment that his figures could be substantiated, because of the differing conditions applying to different firms with differing ability to meet the demands made upon them.

Mr. Higgs

I have built air-raid shelters.

Mr. Messer

You may have done so, but I doubt very much whether you have built the air-raid shelters that will be specified in such particularity as apparently will be reasonable to the inspector or the authority.

Mr. McCorquodale

It is extremely unlikely that you will get a case of more than £4 per person. That will probably be the maximum that will be brought about by this Bill.

Mr. Messer

When hon. Members produce such figures it shows that they have not the due sense of proportion to understand that a wealthy company may easily agree to paying £3 per head of its employés, while an individual employer, a small man, may not be able to pay the same amount. It is clear that there is a difference and I want to point out that we shall find ourselves in the illogical position of placing what is in fact a national responsibility upon private shoulders. War is a national responsibility and so ought to be the defence of the people. We should not be dependent on the ability of a firm to carry out the law as it will be when this Bill becomes an Act, with the alternative of going out of business. An expense of 1 per cent, does not mean very much to a firm which has reserves—I am conceding the 1 per cent.—but that is not true of the small business. Those small businesses will be compelled by law to defend the people that the Government should defend and that is the whole point of the proposition of the Amendment.

One can say that the particular geographical position of one firm will make its financial liability different from that of another firm. However it might be possible logically to defend the obligation of an employer to protect his workpeople during an emergency, it could not be contended for a moment with any justice that it is right for A to be called upon to pay more than B. Assuming it to be true that the maximum cost is £3 per head—

Mr. McCorquodale

Four pounds.

Mr. Messer

The hon. Member sees how moderate I am. I accept the figure of £4. Assuming that to be the maximum which would have to be paid by a small man, it is obviously wrong if a big firm can get away with £2, The logical thing is obviously that the Government should consider to what extent they are prepared to undertake what is their responsibility in a national emergency. Having got us into a fix, they should protect us when we are in it.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

Would it be in order for me to move a manuscript Amendment to the Amendment of the Minister? I consider it very important that those of us who are interested especially in the more hard-hit areas of the country to do what is possible to protect the small people who are likely to be hard hit by this Clause. I would move, if it were in order, the folowing Amendment to the Amendment: In line 2, after "necessary," to insert:"(provided it is within the means of the small employers affected)." I consider that this would be only fair on the part of the Minister and the Government, because it immediately raises the question of what is to be done if they cannot meet the obligation. I hear some murmurings going round that the wording is not verygood—

Mr. McEntee

It may be all right to enable the employer to get out of his liability, but it does not provide the necessary shelter for the workers in the factory.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I had better tell the hon. Member straight away that I should not select that Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher

I am saying that, if that Amendment were carried, the question would come up, who is going to take the responsibility for providing shelters when the small employer is not in a position to do it? I suggest this Amendment in order to direct attention to what is actually happening in connection with this problem. It is all very well to say that it is only one per cent, of the capital, but, if the party on this side of the House gets the opportunity and suggests a capital levy of even only one per cent. on the big firms, we shall hear a squeal from the hon. Member and those associated with him, letting us know whether or not one per cent, is a lot. Where one per cent, might not inflict a fatal injury on a big company, it could quite easily be fatal to some of the smaller firms at a particular moment when trade was very bad and their situation very difficult.

The Minister, therefore, has to face up to this question. If the inspector or the local authority lays down the conditions for a small employer with such particularity as is thought reasonably necessary, and that small employer is not able to meet them, what is going to be the answer of the Minister? We hive seen many small men ruthlessly put out of business. Some areas of this country are going to be very seriously affected by the Clause, and many more people will be put out of business if this Amendment goes through. I would ask the Minister to say whether this Amendment is for the purpose of ensuring protection for the employés of small employers, or whether it is for the purpose of putting the small employer out of business. I would like an answer to that question, because it is the question that arises as a consequence of this Amendment.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I do not think the time that the House has spent on this matter has been misspent, because clearly this is a very important Clause, and the Amendment will increase some of the difficulties that will confront those persons with whom the Clause deals. On one of the new Clauses this afternoon, both the right hon. Gentlemen opposite drew attention to the drastic nature of the Clause, and this also is a very drastic Clause, because the notices with which it deals are served on the persons concerned, and, as far as I can see, there is no appeal from the notice. The works specified in the notice have to be carried out, and very heavy penalties are imposed. There is a maximum fine of £100 for the offence, and the court can make an order specifying a reasonable number of days within which the order shall be complied with, after which there is a continuing penalty of £50 a day as a maximum. That is quite right: no one on this side of the House will complain about the size of the penalty if we can be assured that the persons concerned have a reasonable chance of meeting the provisions of the Clause.

The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) asked what was going to happen to the employés of the firm. Clearly, if the firm is closed down, the employés will have to look somewhere else for employment. That is the effect on the employés, and the inspector or the local authority will therefore be put in the position, in a large number of cases, of determining whether the firm will be able to carry on or not. I can see no objection to the form of words proposed by the Minister, provided that some arrangement can be made for firms who are genuinely desirous of providing accommodation for their workmen and are only prevented from doing so by the difficulty of financing the arrangements at the moment.

In view of the concessions that have been made to private enterprise elsewhere in the Bill, I can see no reason why the Government themselves should not be responsible in suitable cases for financing persons who have been called upon to deal with their works or commercial buildings under this Clause, and who find themselves financially unable to do so. In spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), from the views that have been expressed by other hon. Members on this side and from the knowledge that some of us here have of the difficulties in our own constituencies we feel that there will be firms on whom this additional capital charge will press very heavily, and which may easily, in the words of the Lord Privy Seal, put them out of business altogether. We do. not think that that should be the result of this Clause, and we hope that the Government will be able to do something to meet us.

Mr. W. S. Morrison rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House. He has already spoken once.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Morrison

I am obliged to you. Sir. With the leave of the House, I would say that with the object of this Amendment I think no hon. Member could disagree. With regard to what has been said, I should clearly be out of order if I were to propose, or even to discuss, further financial arrangements outside the terms of the Resolution.

Miss Wilkinson

On a point of Order. You have not called us to order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on any of the speeches we have made asking what the Government propose to do in regard to the financial provisions. Is it in order for the Minister to say that he cannot reply because he would be out of order?

Mr. McEntee

Did not the Minister himself, in his previous speech, say that the purpose of this Amendment was to compel recalcitrant owners to do this work, and is it not legitimate, therefore, to ask what happens if they do not?

Mr. Morrison

I was not refusing to reply to arguments which are in order, but I was stating how far, in my own opinion, I should go.

Miss Wilkinson

It is not a question of your opinion, but of Mr. Deputy-Speaker's.

Mr, Morrison

Yes, and I have no doubt Mr. Deputy-Speaker would pull me up if I attempted to do that. Let us examine how this Amendment appears when fastened on to this salutary provision in the Clause. I think there has been a great deal of exaggeration of the evils and woes which are apprehended. When we hear about the very small employers whose woes are so graphically painted by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I wonder whether he remembers that to qualify for any sympathy at all a man must be a bloated capitalist employing 50men. The second point I would ask hon. Members to remember is that, although we have been discussing this as if it were a capital charge and with that extreme tenderness for any trenching upon capital that hon. Members opposite always display, in a great number of cases these charges will be met out of revenue as they come along; and when the grant is taken into account it is fair to say that the total charge on any firm will not exceed one week's wages.

Mr. McEntee

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the wages are £4 per man? In many cases they are not 36s. per man.

Mr. Morrison

I am giving a conservative estimate and taking account of the Government grant. In cases that I have considered the cost will not exceed one week's wages. Many firms in this country are not hovering so near the brink of ruin that one week's wages will put them out of business. In some cases sympathetic consideration will have to be given. On the general principle, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:

In page 14, line 36, leave out Subsection (7), and insert: (7) Where a notice is served under this Section on the occupier of factory premises or the owner of a commercial building and the occupier or owner holds any part of the premises or building on lease, he shall within 14 days from the date of the service of the notice on him serve a copy thereof upon his immediate landlord or where he holds different parts of the premises or building under different landlords, on each of his immediate landlords, and each person upon whom a copy of such a notice is served in satisfaction of an obligation imposed by this Sub-section shall within seven days from the date of the service of the copy on him himself serve a copy upon his immediate landlord or landlords, if any; Provided that where the occupier of factory premises has under Sub-section (5) of this Section served a copy of a notice on a person the service of the copy shall be treated as satisfying his obligation under this Sub-section to serve a copy on that person.

In page 15, line 5, leave out from "shelter," to the end of line 6.

In line 11, leave out "for those persons."

In line 12, leave out from "shelter," to the end of Clause—[Sir J. Anderson.']