SECOND READING. (Hansard, 20 February 1891)

§ LORD THRING
My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships a very short time upon this occasion, in asking for a Second Reading. This is a very un-ambitious Bill, but I hope it will prove a profitable one. Its chief object is to 1186 remove the greatest of the evils which were shown to exist in the course of the inquiry before the Sweating Committee in the foul dens—no words are strong enough to describe the horrors of them—in which the humbler classes only too often have to work. It will only be necessary for me to explain very shortly what the existing law is, and then to state briefly the amendments which I propose to make in that law. The existing law is contained in two Acts, one is the Public Health Act of 1875, and the other is the Factory Act of 1878. The stronger sanitary regulations are contained in the Factory Act; and, as I propose to consolidate the law, I have set out those clauses in Clause 2 of my Bill. Those regulations comprise the maintenance of cleanliness, and freedom from effluvia arising from drains, they provide against overcrowding, and secure ventilation, the removal of gases, and other injurious products. There is also a further clause providing for whitewashing and painting within certain times. This law the facts of the case, as given in evidence, show to be sufficient, where it is properly administered, and the remedy that is required is not so much in relation to the law as to its administration. With respect to the administration of the law, workplaces—for that, perhaps, is the most generic term to use—are divided into two classes: first, workplaces under the Factory Act, and, secondly, workplaces under the Public Health Act. Workplaces under the Factory Act are really and truly, in the first place, factories which are not used as dwelling-places; and, secondly, workshops in which children and young persons are employed. Those are the only class of workplaces to which, under the Factory Act, the Sanitation Clauses apply. All other cases come under the Public Health Acts. First, I must explain very shortly what the factories are. They are defined to be buildings in which mechanical power, such as steam, is employed in conducting certain processes, or used in certain trades which are unusually unhealthy, and, therefore, are considered necessary to be included in the Act, such as calico-printing and bleaching processes. Workshops, on the other hand, are workplaces to which the employer has the 1187 right of access. With respect to the places I have mentioned, the only ones under the Factory Acts are those which are not used as dwelling-houses. All the rest are under the other Act. Now, as to the remedies. The mode of dealing with these places proposed is principally by inspection. Inspection under the Factory Acts is conducted by the Inspectors appointed for that purpose; inspection under the Sanitary Acts is conducted by the ordinary Sanitary Inspectors. In these cases inspection is absolutely necessary. With respect to the factories, I have left them as they are now under the Act; but I have also added workplaces with more than 50 people; so that all large workshops will be under the Factory Inspectors, and all other workplaces will be under sanitary inspection. It is perfectly certain that at the present moment the local Sanitary Inspectors are, on the whole, slack in their duties, and there is great difficulty in enforcing the regulations. Therefore, what I propose to do is to place the inspection of workshops entirely under the County Councils—to give them full control over the whole of the local inspection. By full control I do not mean to appoint the local Inspectors; but I mean, if the local Inspector does not do his duty the County Council may remove him and replace him by another person. Now, with respect to the proceedings by which this law is enforced apart from inspection. They are principally proceedings at Petty Sessions. If the regulations are not complied with the Inspector may take proceedings in Petty Sessions, and the Court of Petty Sessions may make an Order that the Local Authority shall do what is necessary if it thinks fit. Those proceedings have, I think, so far acted pretty well, and I have retained them. I have also added here an important clause. The Inspector may himself desire the person who has neglected to comply with the regulations to do so. He may say, "So-and-so ought to be done; such-and-such filth ought to be removed," the person having the right to appeal; but if that direction is not appealed against the law will immediately become operative. The man may say, "I do not think this is legal," and he may appeal against the Order, but if not the Court will confirm the Order. The truth is that in these 1188 cases what is wanted in the way of remedial measures is in respect of what we should call trivial matters, and what is principally required is that they should be cheap and ready and easy. So far with regard to that part of the Bill. What I have endeavoured to do is to put under the Sanitary Law all the large workshops. I have taken away the exemption which existed, that if used as dwelling-houses they are not to be inspected. With respect to workshops, I have not altered the ordinary law, but I have provided for enforcing that law by making the County Councils masters of the situation. Then with regard to the other matters, they are not very material to notice now. Clauses 5 and 6 were taken from the Victorian Act on the subject. This was found in Victoria exceedingly beneficial for the purpose of preventing sweating; that is to say, that the heads of factories should keep a list of outworkers which should be open to the inspection of proper officers. The truth is that in a great many of these wrongs which are committed, these evils which exist, you will find that a man keeps a factory which is very well regulated, but, at the same time, he has a great number of outworkers—these miserable people of whom we have heard so much, and whose dreadful state is so much to be deplored. In Victoria, owing to the fact that the Inspectors can ascertain who those workers are, they are enabled to make the necessary inquiries, and to find out their condition; and that has been found to operate as a great check upon sweating. I may refer to the recent book of Sir Charles Dilke, on Greater Britain, in which he notices this Act of Victoria and its beneficial results. Then Clause 15 prohibits women using hammers in workshops. The necessity for that provision arises from this fact. In the Cradley Iron Works the women use an instrument called an "oliver." This instrument is used by means of a treadle, and when the hammer is of great weight it puts a pressure upon the strength of women which is altogether more than they should have to endure. It was also proved to us upon the Sweating Commission that it was a very unhealthy employment in the case of women. On the other hand, I do not think the prohibition in regard to work of that 1189 kind ought to be altogether absolute, because when the treadle is used and the hammer small it is perfectly innocuous. I have put the limit of weight at 4 lbs., but if that is objected to it can easily be altered for any other figure that may be desired. Then it was proved to us that a great many women are employed in welding heavy chains, and they have also to cut cold iron for that purpose. Such an operation is certainly beyond the strength of women, and I have therefore inserted a clause prohibiting it, when the weights are too heavy and the links beyond a certain size. That is, in reality, the whole of my Bill. I believe that, as a practical measure, it will have a very great beneficial effect indeed. In the first place, it removes the difficulty which has been found to exist under the Factory Acts. Under those Acts the Inspector has great doubts as to his jurisdiction. Another defect arising under the existing Acts which it will remove is that there is a dual authority. The Factory Inspector and the Sanitary Inspector have jurisdiction over the same place. The Factory Inspector is directed by that Act, for instance, to apply to the Sanitary Inspector when any defect arises from drains. It is quite clear that such a dual authority is extremely injurious, and, therefore, I have entirely removed it by giving the Factory Inspector complete jurisdiction wherever it is required. I do not think I need say much more in explanation of the Bill. I have not attempted to shorten the hours of labour, or to go further into the many difficult problems which are connected with the labour question; because I do not myself think we had sufficient evidence before the Sweating Committee to enable us to judge of what would be the proper course to be taken with regard to those most difficult and complex questions. I conclude by recommending this Bill to your Lordships, as I believe it will bring light and cleanliness into those dark spots of which we heard so much on the Sweating Committee, and brighten and make healthy what must be admitted to be the harsh and unlovely existence of many a humble artisan and many a hard-working woman. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN
My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill, not as your Lordships may imagine to endeavour to dissuade you from giving it a Second Reading, for I hope it will be read a second time, not only on account of the intrinsic merits of the Bill itself, but because, if it is not read a second time, another Bill, which perhaps I may be pardoned for thinking far superior to it, will not be given a Second Reading. But there are one or two matters connected with this Bill which it appears to me will militate against the very object which the noble and learned Lord opposite wishes to bring about. My noble Friend spoke of the necessity for inspection. I wish to point out to him that the condition precedent of a thorough inspection is a complete system of registration; because one of the difficulties which was most clearly proved in evidence before your Lordships' Select Committee on the Sweating System was the great difficulty that was experienced in discovering where the smallest class of workshops commonly called "sweating-dens" were situated; and this Bill contains no provision whatever for registering workshops or workplaces. Factories, of course, are registered under the existing law, but workshops are not. Almost the same remark affects Clause 5 of the Bill. That is a very useful clause, which requires a record to be kept of outside workers—or work that is put out, work that is sub-contracted for, the work, in fact, that goes into these small sweaters' dens, and places of that kind. But the noble Lord has in this Bill made a new definition of what he calls "workplaces," that is to say, all workshops where less than 50 people are employed. I imagine that would be 99 in 100 of all the workshops in the country, because there are not a great many in which more than 50 persons are employed, and as "workplaces" are omitted from this clause no register of outside work will be kept, practically speaking, in any of the workshops in the country. I have no objection whatever, on general principles, to the powers and authorities which the Bill proposes to give to County Councils; but I would point out that the way in which that power is granted by the Bill will cause a great deal of confusion. The County 1191 Councils are charged with superintending the inspection of workplaces; that is to say, all workshops where less than 50 people are employed. The effect of that will be, I should imagine, that the Local Authorities would not do their duty in the matter; that is to say, that in order to save themselves from the obloquy of raising the rates they will do nothing, and will throw the responsibility upon the County Councils, preferring that, as far as possible, their local work should be done for them and paid for out of the county rates. That is not a matter which I think will commend itself to your Lordships. Then the County Councils are given by the Bill power to dismiss sanitary officers; but the power of dismissing the sanitary officers is not, at the same time, interfered with in any wav as regards the Local Authorities. Therefore, the unfortunate sanitary officers will be under the thumb of two masters, and I am afraid that their difficulties in doing their duty will be somewhat oppressive in that respect. I have made these remarks because, as it appears to me, those provisions in the Bill to which I have referred will destroy the very objects which my noble Friend has in view; and I trust if the Bill is read a second time, as I hope it may be, he will consider those matters carefully before the Bill reaches another stage.

§ LORD DE RAMSEY
My Lords, there are at present no fewer than five Bills, which have either been presented to Parliament or shortly will be, dealing with this question. The first is a Government Bill, which I am informed is down for Second Reading in another place next Thursday. I have a proposal to make, which I trust will meet with your Lordships' approval, and with the approval of the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. As there are so many Bills before Parliament, I hope the noble Lord will wait until the Government measure has been read a second time, and then consent, if your Lordships approve, that this measure should go before a Committee at the same time as the Government Bill. I do not know whether he has seen the Government Bill; but I think I can assure the noble Lord that he will find clauses in that measure which will 1192 meet with his approval. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote one instance as showing why I think the noble Lord would do well to consent to that course. This Bill deals almost entirely with sanitation, which is largely the ground of the Government Bill; and were it to be proceeded with now, some confusion would be created owing to the introduction of fresh terms differing from the Factory Act of 1878. This Bill does not, for instance, repeal clauses in the existing Factory Act; and workshops should have, according to this Bill, a different meaning from that employed in that Act. Again, the Bill does not re-enact the qualification requiring the occupier to have a right of access; and the use of the term "workplace" might be likely to lead to an undesirable interference with private home work. That is a very important point, and your Lordships will remember that in our discussion last year on the Sweating Committee's Report that matter of labour in private dwellings engaged your Lordships' attention a good deal. Under the circumstances, therefore, I ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time, on the understanding that the noble Lord proceeds no further with it until there has been an opportunity of discussing the Government measure.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)
My Lords, I hope, as I was to some extent instrumental in passing the Bill of 1878, which consolidated the Factory Acts, I may be allowed to ask the noble and learned Lord one question. It has already been pointed out by the noble Lord who has just sat down that the Definition Clause of this Bill and that contained in the Act of 1878 are different in one important particular. Under that Act it will be found that there is no limit of 50 persons being employed on the premises, but that the workshop must be a place under the control of the master, and to which the master had access. The object of that provision, as the noble and learned Lord must know well, because he drew the Bill according to my instructions, was to prevent the law from applying to domestic houses, where members of the same family are at work on their own account, getting their own living; but, as the noble and learned Lord has drawn his Bill, the words applying 1193 to those cases are left out in the definition of workshops and workplaces, and according to Clause 17, any place where, say, the daughters of a family were at work for a living, having no master at all, but simply doing their own private work in their own house, would come within the provisions of this Bill. Was that the intention of the noble Lord, or not? I would ask him, therefore, whether those words of definition in the Act of 1878 were purposely left out?

§ LORD THRING
With regard to the criticism which has been made on the definition of workshops and workplaces, I think "workshops" is accurate. Workplaces are under the present Act, the Public Health Act, and are subject to sanitary inspection without any conditions whatever. What I have done is this: I have really and truly only levelled up workshops with more than 50 workers into the class of factories, in order to put the people employed there in the same position as factory workers. But I have not, as far as I understand (though I will certainly endeavour to alter my Bill if that be so), given the Inspectors a greater right to enter private houses than is contained in the two Acts together at the present time; because, although the Factory Acts to which the noble Lord has referred exempt workshops which are used as private dwelling-houses, and places to which a manager has not access, they are still under the jurisdiction of the Sanitary Inspector; and what I have wished to do is to strengthen the powers of inspection of the Sanitary Inspector, and to put the larger workshops under the Factory Inspectors. But I think the noble Lord will see that I have not authorised any invasion of private houses or mere family workplaces by the Inspector to a greater extent than under the existing law. The difference is that in one case the Factory Inspector has access, but that the Sanitary Inspector has access in every case. I do not know whether I have made myself clear to your Lordships. With respect to the proposal made by the noble Lord, that I should go no further with this Bill until the Government Bill has been read a second time in the other House, of course, if he insists upon it, I must submit; but the only question is whether 1194 it would not be better to pass this Bill through your Lordships' House, and then send it down to the other House to be committed with the other measure.