§ 8.35 P.m.
§ Dr. Haden Guest
I beg to move, in page 17, line 9, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "thirty."
This Clause deals with the training of employés, not only in the routine to be followed in the event of an air raid that is, seeking shelter or dispersing—but also in the first-aid treatment to be given, the emergency treatment for gas, and measures to be taken to fight fire. All those things are exceedingly important. In the Clause as drafted, the reference to 50 persons excludes a very large number of small establishments, such as those in the East End of London, in Birmingham, Sheffield, and many other industrial cities. There are large number of establishments employing fewer than 50 people, and because of that, discipline in the case of an air attack will be all the more necessary. Therefore, it is essential that these employés should have training. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, and thus bring within the scope of the Bill a very large number of factories and workshops.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ 8.37 p.m.
Mr. Vyvyan Adams
I call the attention of the Committee to Sub-section (2) which reads:It shall be the duty of every person to whom this Section applies, not later than one month from the date on which this Section first applies to him, to make a report in writing, in the case of factory premises, to the factory inspector for the district, in the case of a mine, to the mines inspector for the district, and, in the case of a commercial building, to the local authority, stating what measures he has taken or is taking or proposing to take to secure that all the persons employed by him in the premises, mine or building are trained as respects the routine to be followed in the event of an air raid and that a suitable proportion of those persons are trained and equipped to give first-aid treatment, to deal with the effects of gas and to fight fires.All the services specified in this Sub-section are, I believe, voluntary services, and I should like to know from the Lord Privy Seal under what law the employer is able to compel his employés to be trained for these purposes. Can the employer legally insist upon this training? I suggest that the answer to that question is "no." There is, in fact, no Act of Parliament or regulation which can compel an employer to do this or enable him to compel his employé to be so trained. Nor, I venture to say, with great respect, will any speech that may be forthcoming from the Lord Privy Seal secure the result which I think the Government and probably the whole Committee have in mind. I would further like to add, if this is in order, that I think that result can be secured only if the Committee are willing to accept an Amendment like the one which I have not been allowed to move.
§ 8.39 p.m.
I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal a question on a matter which has been brought to my notice by the Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Borough Councils. They are anxious to know whether, in connection with the training to be given in these workshops and factories, the local authorities are expected to give assistance by providing lectures and equipment or whether that is to be the employer's responsibility. There are in the Bill so many details on 2209 which one might put down Amendments that one finally comes to the conclusion that one cannot put down any Amendments, and that the points must be the subject partly of regulations and partly of common sense. I hope it may be possible for the Minister to clear up this matter. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. Would it be possible to ensure that the local authorities are, in fact, informed in all cases where reports on factory premises are made by inspectors? Under the provisions of the Bill, they might not always be directly informed, and it is desirable that the local authorities should be kept in the closest touch with what is going on.
§ 8.41 p.m.
§ Mr. Higgs
I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams). Many employers have experienced considerable practical difficulties in inducing their employés to take part in these services, and sometimes have had to go as far as making a minor payment in order to get the employés to take part in the various classes and organisations run by the factories. This is a serious difficulty, and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will take notice of what was said by the hon. Member for West Leeds. Unless something is done in that direction, I am afraid these voluntary services will not be efficient.
§ 8.42 p.m.
§ Mr. Gallacher
There is one matter arising from this Clause which I would like to have cleared up by the Lord Privy Seal. The Clause makes it necessary for the employer to advise the factory inspector or the mines inspector, as the case may be, of the arrangements that have been made for his employés to be efficiently trained in order to carry out the work in connection with the safety of the premises and the people working in them. I should like to know what will be the situation, not in the case of a factory, mine or commercial building, but in the case of a shelter for the factory which is provided by the local authority. Whose will be the responsibility in connection with the training of those employés in any particular class? The Lord Privy Seal will remember that at an earlier stage in the discussions an Amendment was moved to allow a local authority to provide a shelter where it is not suitable to have one in the factory. Where there is 2210 such a shelter away from the factory, provided by a local authority, will it be the responsibility of the factory to see that the employés are trained to undertake full responsibility for that shelter?
§ 8.44 p.m.
Mr. W. Joseph Stewart
According to Sub-section (2) of this Clause,It shall be the duty of every person to whom this section applies, not later than one month from the date on which this section first applies to him, to make a report in writing, in the case of factory premises, to the factory inspector for the district, in the case of a mine, to the mines inspector for the district. …When those reports are submitted to the mines inspector in cases where the measures set out in the Bill are not complied with, to whom will the mines inspector make his report? Will the report be submitted to the Department controlled by the Lord Privy Seal, or will it be submitted to the Mines Department?
§ 8.45 p.m.
While I dissent from the spirit of the proposal of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams), I can understand what caused him to put down his Amendment, and I suggest that it would be convenient if the Lord Privy Seal would advise the Committee, and through the Committee the country, of what is intended by this Clause. This matter has been more or less brought to a head by the fact that, recently, much publicity was given to the dismissal of a lady member of a staff because of her refusal to take part in routine staff drills in connection with air-raid precautions. This Clause makes it compulsory on employers to provide certain services in connection with the training of employés. If the employés are to read into these provisions that they must provide a satisfactory air-raid precautions corps to the extent of the training provided, and if even in that case a number of employés refuse to take advantage of the training, we are in a somewhat difficult position. I do not think my hon. Friends would join in any proposal to compel workers to undertake services outside the duties of their job, if they did not volunteer to do so, but I think this is a matter on which we ought to have guidance.
§ 8.47 p.m.
§ Mr. Gordon Macdonald
I wish to draw attention to the effect of Sub-section 2211 (2), in relation particularly to mines. We have rescue parties in connection witch mines under the Mines Acts, and I take it that if there was a rescue party for each colliery it would meet the requirements of this Clause. At the moment we have not such rescue parties in each colliery in all parts of the country. There are regional rescue parties, and these are well trained and are mainly for the purpose of dealing with explosions. Is it the intention under the Bill to have a rescue party of that type for each colliery?
§ 8.48 p.m.
§ Sir J. Anderson
Perhaps it will be convenient if I endeavour to deal first with the general question concerning the position of employers under this Clause. The Government have deliberately refrained from entrusting employers with special powers in relation to their workpeople in the discharge of the obligations which the Clause clearly lays upon them. The view on which the Government proceed, is that, in this as in many other matters arising under the Bill, good will and good sense will go much further in the direction in which we desire to see progress, than compulsory provisions. The arrangements for training and drill and so forth for which the Clause provides will undoubtedly be a function of management. We anticipate that in all but an insignificant minority of cases, it will be dealt with as a matter of factory or of shop routine. There are precedents such as that to which the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) referred, of rescue parties in coal mines, and I can also refer, in connection with factories, to provisions for fire drill and welfare and all that sort of thing, which involve obligations on the employer without placing the employer in a position to apply compulsion under statutory powers to any of his workpeople. That is the line upon which the Government proceed, and we hope that such questions as may arise will be capable of being dealt with, and will in practice be dealt with, under the normal industrial machinery, and that if difficulties arise they will be the subject of discussion between the employers and the representatives of the workers. I think that is all I need say on the general question.
The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) asked about the position of local authorities. There again we have 2212 deliberately refrained from specifying in precise detail how we expect employers to set about the fulfilment of these obligations. In the case of the larger concerns, we think that probably special arrangements will be made by the employers for the instruction of workpeople on the premises. In the case of the smaller concerns, where only a small gang may have to be instructed in first aid, fire fighting, or anti-gas work, it may be found in many cases most convenient to arrange either for the employés of several concerns to be trained together or for the local authority to make some arrangement by which training will be given on the premises of the local authority. We have left the arrangements elastic, and these arrangements are being made up and down the country to-day and we have not found that any practical difficulty arises. The number of qualified instructors in the various branches of Civil Defence has increased enormously during recent months, and at the Home Office schools instruction has been given not only to the employés of local authorities but also to a number of the employés of industrial and commercial concerns. I think the purpose of the Clause would best be served by leaving the arrangements as flexible as possible.
In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I would mention that this Clause is not concerned with the provision of shelters but solely with the question of training. He wanted to know whether in a case in which a local authority provides a shelter by arrangement with the employer, that will modify the employer's obligation under the Clause. The answer is "No." It will be the business of the employer to see that his employés understand what I may call their drill and that an adequate proportion of them are properly instructed in the various special aspects of Civil Defence such as fire-fighting, first aid and so on. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) raised a question about the mine inspectors. They will, of course, in the discharge of these duties remain subject to their own Department. It will be a matter of administrative arrangements to co-ordinate the work under this Measure of factory inspectors and mines inspectors, and the necessary arrangements will be made. Where an employer proves recalcitrant, which we 2213 hope will be only in a small minority of cases, the mines inspector or the factory inspector will probably be in a position to follow up the matter in the courts under the authority delegated to him by his Department.
The hon. Member for North Islington also expressed the hope that steps would be taken to see that local authorities are kept informed of the progress of Civil Defence measures within the sphere of the employers, in regard to both shelters and training. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the desire of the Department to maintain the closest practical contact between local authorities and those who are generally responsible for the development of Civil Defence measures. I have suggested to local authorities and to the associations of employers that joint industrial committees should be set up to secure the necessary co-ordination. I think this is an expedient which has been particularly successful in certain cases and may with advantage be developed.
§ 8.56 p.m.
Mr. V. Adams
This is the first time I have ever heard of an Act of Parliament being made to depend for its enforcement upon good sense and good will. I have always understood that Statutes are enforced by sanctions. This is a Statute in embryo. Part of this Clause is left in the air sanctionless and is merely a pious aspiration. On the other hand, heavy sanctions may be set in motion against the employer—£100, and £50 a day for each day he is found to be in default. As to the other part of the Clause where it affects the employé, we might as well leave the Clause out altogether, because what is the good of regulations which you cannot enforce? I ask the Committee to consider what will happen if employés decline to be trained. They are perfectly entitled to decline, and what remedy will be open to the employer? Is it to give notice to his employés? Suppose dismissal, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), is multiplied indefinitely throughout the country, I ask the Committee again to consider the endless complications and dislocations that will follow. It might wreck a business as well as ruin the careers and livelihood of the workpeoples involved. The Government ought to have the courage to take 2214 powers to enforce the very excellent regulations.
§ 8,59 p.m.
§ Mr. Ede
I am sure that Members on this side will realise that this Clause was framed while the Government still believed in the voluntary principle. The speech of the Lord Privy Seal dealing; with the speeches of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) and of the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) was a complete answer to-all the Government speeches that were made in support of the Military Training, Bill.
§ Mr. Ede
I am going to leave it straight away, but it is desirable that we should point out that any effort to introduce compulsion into this Clause would be strongly opposed by hon. Members ort this side. We recognise that the Minister is putting the employer into an impossible position, because his employés may for some reason refuse to take up Civil Defence at all. They may say, "Now is the time to play the old boy up. Let us remember that he cut down the number of days available for the beanfeast last year, and we have no other way of getting back on him. Let none of us agree to be trained." I suggest that the employer's liability would really be discharged if he made training available for his employés. If between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman introduces words to make the employer liable if he did not make training availaable, he will have preserved the voluntary principle and relieved the employer of the impossible position in which certain employers may now be put. He will, too, have satisfied everybody.
One imagines that the cases where there will be wholesale recalcitrancy on the part of employés will be very limited. After all, it is their lives they are risking by not being trained, and one must assume that in the majority of cases they will be willing. We have already heard of a case of one conscientious 2215 objector whose conscience went to the length of saying that she would do nothing to protect herself or anyone else from the consequences of enemy action. I imagine that such people are very few. It was just that employer's bad luck that he should happen to hit upon such a person in the first round, but we are bound to recognise the difficulties that will arise from such circumstances. I would suggest that making training genuinely available to the employés ought to be sufficient discharge of the employer's obligation under this Clause.
§ 9.3 p.m.
§ Mr. George Griffiths
I am interested in this question from a double standpoint. There are not only employés who are trained by employers, but volunteers, who may also be the same employés, who are serving a local authority. I am a member of an A.R.P. Committee and we have a good number of volunteers; indeed, we have as many as any other neighbouring area. Many of these are employed at the colliery where 3,500 men work. I should like to know whether the men who have been trained can be called on first by the employer or first by the local authority. We have a lot of men who are trained for ambulance work at the colliery. They love ambulance work and they know that if there is a chance of a soft job they are the chaps to get it. If there is a day extra to be worked at the pit which is on short time the ambulance men are favoured. The employer naturally has a hold on his employés, who feel bound to him first, but it is not clear whether their duty is first to their employer or first to the local authority. I shall be glad if the Lord Privy Seal will make the position clear.
§ 9.5 p.m.
§ Mr. Batey
No one in this Debate has dealt with a question which is worrying me. To my mind the weakness of the Clause is that it links mines with factories, and there is a world of difference between them. The mines will train men for first aid and fire duties and so will the factories. It will be easy in the case of a factory to get at the men who are to render first aid or to deal with fires, but should anything occur at a mine the trained men may be below the surface two or three miles away from the shaft and it will not be so easy to get them out to deal with the fires. At the moment 2216 collieries have men trained to render first aid, but if they are to have men available to cope with fires they will have to train a separate group of men altogether. I think it would be better to decide that if a fire occurs the local authority must attend to it, because it might be impossible to get the trained men out of the pit in time.
§ 9.7 p.m.
§ Sir G. Gibson
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the attitude of the Government, in spite of their disinclination to give special powers to the employers as set out in an Amendment. When the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) moved it—
§ Sir G. Gibson
I can quite understand that there may be opposition on the part of employés to compulsion being applied to them to undertake this service, but there are penalties to be imposed on employers, and the Lord Privy Seal ought to consider whether, in the event of facilities for training being provided, although the employés do not take advantage of them, the employer should not be made exempt from the penalties in the Bill.
§ Sir G. Gibson
No, I am not suggesting that, but if the employer has fulfilled his obligation under the Bill it is decidedly unfair to impose financial penalties upon him. Regarding the point made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) about employés who are members of the A.R.P. scheme organised by local authorities, is it to be understood that if an employer should request some of his employés to make up the quota for his own works that he has the first call on them, although they may have already enlisted in the local A.R.P. scheme? There is a feeling on the part of some employés that to be members of the local authority A.R.P. scheme gives them some sort of official status, and they will not have that official recognition if they become members of the classes, as it were, organised by the firms for whom they are working. I hope that on Report stage the Lord Privy Seal will make such 2217 arrangements as will exempt employers from penalties if they have made all the necessary arrangements for providing instruction for their workers.
§ 9.10 p.m.
§ Mr. Westwood
I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that the matter we have been considering ought to have serious consideration from him between now and the Report stage. There will be two. schemes running side by side, the scheme of the local authority, which will deal with A.R.P. for the whole population of the area, and then the schemes organised by employers and applying to their works and their employés. It is very likely that that state of affairs will create confusion in the minds of many of our people. For one thing there will be no one responsible for the organisation of these arrangements on their application to the respective works in the area. Another difficulty that I foresee is that under Sub-section (3) of the Clause it will be open to a factory inspector in the case of factories, to a mines inspector in the case of mines, and to the local authority in the case of commercial buildings, to serve a notice on an employer specifying certain works which have to be undertaken. I am sure the Lord Privy Seal will agree that there are many different points of view among local authorities. Many of them have not faced up to their responsibilities on the matter of air-raid precautions, and it will not be sufficient just to leave it to some of these recalcitrant authorities to issue even a notice to employers to require them to provide facilities for the training of their employés.
I think I should be right in saying that there is no conflict of opinion between this side of the Committee and the other regarding the necessity for providing schemes for training employés, although there would undoubtedly be conflict if compulsion were to be applied to the employés. It must be left to them to volunteer, but I am certain that if it is proved to them that it is in their own interests, from the point of view of their own safety, to undertake the necessary training there will be all the voluntary effort that is required to make a success of the scheme. But I do not think the working of the Clause will give us the results which we desire, and I suggest in all seriousness that the Lord Privy Seal should before the Report stage take into 2218 consideration some of the difficulties which have been pointed out. For one thing I hope that the proposal to leave it to the local authority to see that these schemes are put into operation will not be accepted as satisfactory. There ought to be some more uniform system of ensuring that employers provide schemes for training; and if such arrangements are made I am certain that the arguments which could be used among the employés in our factories, workshops and commercial institutions would secure the necessary response.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Johnston) has said, there is very little of substance outstanding between the two sides of the Committee upon this matter. The only question is how the Clause can be made apt to carry out the purpose which is common to both sides. Many points have been raised in the course of the discussion, but all reasonable points have been foreseen, and it is for that reason that the Clause takes the form it does instead of the more rigid and compulsory form that has been suggested in some quarters.
In this problem it is necessary to secure the degree of uniformity which is adequate, and steps have been taken to that end by the issue of handbooks and the creation of a joint committee advisory to local councils, employers and others, in order to get a common standard of working; but while a degree of uniformity is necessary and admirable, it is necessary also to have a certain degree of elasticity because the circumstances of industrial establishments vary enormously. It is far that reason that the duty of providing training in air-raid precautions in industrial establishments is made a function of management; that is to say, that in the conduct of its own affairs the management is used to working in co-operation with its employés. We believe that by common sense and good will in a matter which is to the interests of both sides this result can be better achieved than if we tried to lay down too many compulsory regulations upon the matter to start with. The problem in many industrial undertakings is not in the scale that has been mentioned, but relates to only a small fraction of the total, and there should 2219 never be, except in rare cases, any difficulty in recruiting men who are willing to undertake this task.
Colonel Sandeman Allen
What is to happen in a loading station where lorries are loaded? The men are spread out all over the country during the day, and although there is a large number of men on the books, the men are not available for training.
§ Mr. Morrison
That problem has not been lost sight of. An Amendment is to be proposed to Clause 72 raising the point directly, and we can deal with it when we come to the Amendment. It is a separate problem. We shall, of course, consider everything that has been contributed to the discussion of this question by the experience of hon. Members. The Debate has followed very much the course that we anticipated. The problem is of a rather protean character owing to the Various circumstances in which industrial occupations are carried on. I would say in reply to the hon. Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths) who was rightly concerned about a man having a double obligation, to the local authority at home as well as at his working place, that if a man had engaged himself to perform a more responsible, full-time job in A.R.P. under the local authority he would not be the best person to be chosen for a similar obligation at an industrial establishment, because circumstances might arise which would demand his being in two places at the same time. Surely that is a matter which can be surmounted by the parties concerned. I do not think we shall find that it involves many difficulties.
§ Mr. G. Griffiths
Shall we discourage a person from volunteering under the local authority if he has already volunteered for his firm?
§ Mr. Morrison
The answer would depend entirely upon what he had undertaken to do. I imagine that some of them will have undertaken positions of responsibility with the local authority, but I can foresee cases where men will have volunteered under the local authority at some distance from the places where they work. In such a case a man might discharge duties to his establishment during his working hours and to the local authority in his residential hours. To my hon. Friend who pointed out that employers 2220 were being placed under an obligation, I am bound to say that if an employer did his best to comply with the regulations to provide facilities for training I very much doubt whether any penalty would ever be visited upon him by any bench with a sense of fairness in the matter. It is necessary to lay this duty upon employers because it is a managerial function, and unless that is done we cannot be certain that the function will be carried out. There may be other points with which I have not dealt, but they will be considered. I hope that the Committee will agree with the broad plan of this Clause, which is that we have to look for a solution of the problem to co-operation and good will between managements and their staffs, in order to secure an object that is common to the safety of both.
§ 9.21 p.m.
Mr. V. Adams
May we take it that the Government are not merely giving an assurance that this will be reconsidered but that it will be carefully examined between now and the Report stage? Speaking for myself, as I believe I was the first to raise this matter, I hope a formula can be devised to convey the meaning which underlay the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I was not quite sure what the words "making training available" might be interpreted as meaning in a court of law, but I wish to impress upon my two right hon. Friends who are conducting the Bill through the Committee that, as the Clause stands, matters are completely unfair to any employer who tries to do his duty but is unfortunate in being unable to secure an adequate measure of co-operation from a sufficient proportion of his employés. On those grounds I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter seriously between now and the Report stage.
§ 9.23 p.m.
Mr. David Adams
I believe that the Committee has seriously considered the statement made in Clause 18 (2) where it is laid down that the employer is liable to take measures to secure that all persons employed by him in his premises, mine, factory, etc., shall be trained and expected to follow the routine in the case of air raids. If that be so, it is clear that the matter cannot be left at large in a voluntary sense, unless, by some marvellous good will between the parties, employés 2221 will be willing to expend a considerable amount of their free time in being trained without any remuneration. That this position is looked upon in my own county of Durham as not very satisfactory means there is provision made that training shall be given, particularly to apprentices, during working hours, so that no time or money is lost on such training. It is most important to require either compulsory training, which the Government are probably not prepared to introduce, in view of the response accorded to the compulsory military training, or some arrangement between the two parties for payment for lost time. Certainly I cannot see the justice of penalising employers in the event of a voluntary arrangement breaking down, and the employés for some private reason declining to have anything to do with protection of this character. The Lord Privy Seal must look more closely into the Clause; otherwise it is bound to break down.
§ 9.26 p.m.
§ Sir J. Anderson
I think there is a danger of falling into a misapprehension here. There is nothing very novel in the Clause. It regularises arrangements which have been made in a very large number of cases all over the country. What it contemplates, as has been explained in a handbook which has already been widely circulated, is first that all the employés shall be trained in regard to the routine that they should follow in the event of air raids. That does not involve giving up a great deal of time in order to learn what to do. It is something in the nature of boat drill, that the people should know what course they should follow in order to get to shelters and how they should comport themselves. Apart from that, a proportion of the employés are to be trained in specific duties—first-aid, fire-fighting, anti-gas measures and so on. The handbook is based on experience already acquired and indicates, according to the size nad character of the establishment, the proportion of the employés who should be so trained.
§ Sir J. Anderson
It varies according to the size of the establishment. From 10 per cent. downwards is the sort of proportion, with a smaller percentages in the case of large establishments. That is all set out. The Clause has been discussed with representatives of the employers' 2222 organisations, and they have not indicated the sort of apprehension as to the effect which it will in practice have which those hon. Members who have been so solicitous on behalf of employers have indicated. Those employés who form part of the specially trained gangs in a factory or commercial establishment will, during working hours, owe their first duty to that establishment. It will not be expected that they should be under a concurrent obligation to the local authority, although every addition to the number of people trained in Civil Defence measures is an addition to our national strength, and it does not at all follow that people trained primarily for what we call industrial air-raid protection—people so trained have the same recognition as people trained in Civil Defence under a local authority—will not be available, perhaps as a second line, to supplement the local authority services outside working hours.
§ 9.30 p.m.
Sir John Mellon
I am not at all sure that the question of the position of employers is entirely a theoretical difficulty, because I have been told by one very large employer of labour that he was seriously apprehensive about the position, with regard to the question of the willingness of some of his employés to be trained. There is no question that under the Clause a duty is imposed upon employers which it is possible, through no fault of their own, they will be unable to discharge.
§ The Chairman
I think the hon. Baronet has only just come in, so that it is not his fault, but what he is saying at the moment is a most notable case of repetition.
§ Sir J. Mellor
I was only going to say I could not see any reason why between now and Report the Government could not devise a form of words which would entirely satisfy the objections that have been taken.
§ The Chairman
The hon. Baronet is still repeating, almost word for word, what has been said several times.
§ Mr. Gallacher
Goaded into it by continual repetition, might I say to the Lord Privy Seal that an employer who keeps such intolerable conditions in his factory as will not allow him to get a proportion of, say, 10 per cent. to volunteer for 2223 national service should be in jail. For the safety of the country it would be better. I was not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my question. It was too casual. I should like him to give more serious consideration to this very big problem with which he is confronted, because there is a casual attitude in many local authorities too. The position in a factory where the employés remain in or about the premises will be different from the case where they immediately leave it, so there will have to be consideration given to the particular kind of training in different kinds of factories.
§ Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.