§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD BELPERMy Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not think it will be necessary to inform your Lordships that the Bill has received very full and detailed discussion both in a Standing Committee of the other House and in the House itself. It is in no sense a contentious measure, and, although there have been considerable differences of opinion with regard to details, the discussions have been carried on on both sides of the House of Commons in a businesslike manner, and with a 867 desire to come to the most satisfactory conclusions possible, with regard to the details of this very large and complicated measure. Considerable Amendments have been embodied in the Bill, and it comes to your Lordships' House with the good wishes of all who desire to see it passed. No new principle is embodied in the measure. It carries out two objects; first, it amends the Factory and Workshop Act in several respects in which experience has shown that amendment is needed. I think it will be recognised by all that it will be an immense boon to all concerned to have the whole law consolidated in one Act, as is done in this Bill. Owing to the late period of the session at which the Bill comes before your Lordships, I do not think it will be considered necessary that I should address the House at any length on the subject, but I should like to call attention to one or two of the principal changes in the law which are brought about by this Bill, and to one or two of the most important points in the measure. The first important point to which I will refer is the question dealing with dangerous trades. Under the existing state of the law some inconvenience is found, and the Bill proposes that in any dangerous trade the Secretary of State shall have the power to draft the regulations which are to be enforced in factories where a dangerous trade is being carried on. There will be the fullest opportunity to those affected; they will have a hearing, before a competent person who will be appointed for the purpose, with regard to the regulations which have been made. After that hearing it will lie in the power of the Secretary of State to deal with the matter, and he will have the full responsibility subject to the control of Parliament. The Bill also deals with the regulation of work which is given out, as it is thought that places of this kind should be under proper inspection and control. The Bill deals with a number of other matters, such as ventilation, drainage, inspection of steam boilers, and also with the fish curing and fruit preserving industries. As those industries depend on perishable articles it is necessary that the stringent regulations with regard to hours should not be enforced, but at the same time it has been thought that there is no 868 reason why the other regulations with regard to factories should not obtain. Therefore the Bill proposes to extend those regulations to these two particular industries. These are the prominent features, and they are matters of detail and not of principle. As to the laundry question, when the Bill was considered it was thought desirable that the present law, which has not been found to work satisfactorily, should be amended, and therefore laundries were put into the Bill for the purpose of being regulated. In the Standing Committee there was a very full and long discussion on the matter, and very strong objection was taken by the Irish Members to any inspection of laundries carried on in conventual establishments. Finally the Bill went to the House with a clause in it dealing with laundries with the exception of this particular class which were not to be inspected. This was following a course of procedure which had been adopted on previous occasions when some objections were taken by the Irish Members. When the matter came before the whole House the Home Secretary was placed in a great difficulty. It was his desire to see the laundries continued in the Bill. At the same time he had to consider the Bill as a whole. There was the strongest objection to exempted laundries being in competition with other laundries, while on the other hand the Irish Members were determined, in any case, to prevent inspection, and the Home Secretary finally decided to omit the clause altogether. This was carried by an overwhelming majority. This is not the first time that pressure had been brought to bear, and certainly it is not the first time that at this late period of a session it has been found necessary to omit clauses owing to the exigencies of the moment. It will be admitted, I think, that if there ever was a Bill in which such a necessity might arise it is in the case of this large Bill, which contains no less than 162 clauses and covers over 100 pages of printed matter. It will be impossible for the Government to agree to any Amendment in your Lordships' House in opposition to the striking out of the clause, for that would endanger the passing of the Bill. Of course, the Government did not pledge themselves with regard to the future. The whole matter can be left open to be dealt with, 869 if thought desirable, on another occasion. One other point to which I wish to refer is the Saturday half-holiday. The Home Secretary resisted the proposal that it should commence at 12 o'clock instead of 1 o'clock, but the decision of the House was against the Government. My right hon. friend accepted that decision, and the Government cannot accept any Amendment on that matter. I hope I have said enough to induce your Lordships to pass the Bill without any substantial Amendments.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Belper.)
*LORD WINDSORMy Lords, I do not wish to occupy the time of the House with any remarks upon the Second Reading, because I have no objection to what is contained in the Bill, but to what is omitted. I think that some protest should be made with regard to the little opportunity we have had of examining this Bill, as it was not printed till this morning. I only rise now to intimate that in Committee I shall move a clause dealing with laundries, inserting the clause as amended in the other House, with the addition of what was known as Mr. Talbot's Amendment.
§ EARL SPENCERMy Lords, I wish to associate myself with the noble Lord who has just spoken in protesting against the position in which the House of Lords is placed by having this long and important Bill brought forward on the last night but one of the session. I believe that I am the sole representative of the Opposition present, and the Government may blame the noble Lords who support me for not being present. But the practice is of long standing, and I find even the usually well filled benches opposite rather bare. I therefore most earnestly protest againt a Bill of this magnitude and importance being brought on at so late a period of the session. This Bill, as the noble Lord who introduced it said, consolidates the present law and enacts certain new clauses. I do not propose to discuss the general enactments of the Bill; they are no doubt of considerable importance, and I should be very sorry if they were not passed. At the same time I must refer to one grave omission from the Bill—the clause dealing with laundries. This question has been 870 before your Lordships on more than one occasion. When in 1891 the Government of the day introduced a Bill with regard to factories the question of laundries was prominently brought before your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Dunraven moved an Amendment, which met with considerable support, in favour of including laundries in the Act. In the Act of 1895, which was introduced by Lord Rosebery's Government and taken up by Lord Salisbury's Government, there was a clause referring to laundries, but it contained this important exception—
Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are (a) inmates of any prison, reformatory, or industrial school or other institution for the time being subject to inspection under any Act other than this Act; or (b) inmates of an institution conducted in good faith for religious or charitable purposes. "Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there, or in which the number of persons ordinarily employed (exclusive of such members, if any) does not exceed two.The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, admitted that the clauses of that Act which referred to laundries—I mean the laundries held for profit by private people—were ineffective and unsatisfactory. What did the Secretary of State himself say with regard to this not long ago? He said—But the Committee [the Committee of 1895] to which the Bill was referred did not accept the proposal in its entirety, for although it was not the intention of the Committee to remove laundries from the operations of the sanitary provisions they thought that the nature of the operations carried on in laundries required some relaxation of the law with respect to the daily distribution of the hours of labour. However, the clause embodying the regulations approved by that Committee was drawn in so hazy a fashion that it did not carry out what I believe were the intentions of the Committee, and as a fact it has been found practically incapable of enforcement for many reasons.Therefore the Bill as it now stands, without any reference to laundries, will continue what has been found to be a great hardship with regard to those employed in laundries. As the noble Lord has stated, in the present Bill there was originally a clause dealing with laundries, and though exceptions were attached to it in Grand Committee, I would much rather have had the clause with the exceptions than no clause at all. I do not believe that a laundry which is 871 carried on under proper sanitary conditions would on that account be unable to compete with other laundries. As to the religious question, anyone who has been long in Ireland must have admiration for the great philanthropic work done by the nuns. They appear to object to inspection of the laundries attached to their convents, and I regret it exceedingly, because in the great majority of cases they conduct the laundries in a perfectly efficient and satisfactory manner, and they can have nothing to fear from inspection, while by refusing it they will, I am afraid, put themselves under suspicion. I noticed that in another place a well known member of the Roman Catholic faith approved of an Amendment which enabled inspection to be made, and that gives me some hope that even in Ireland an arrangement might be made whereby these regulations could be applied. I most strongly and earnestly protest against the omission of the laundry clause. There is no class which more requires protection than the laundry workers, who number, in London alone, something like 100,000; and it is lamentable that the Government should have surrendered the clause. Whether it was to placate the Irish or to prevent the holidays from being delayed for a few days, the Government have taken a very serious responsibility. The present Goveznment are in a very different position from the Government of 1895, for the former have an enormous majority and the later were dependent on the votes of the Irish. I trust that the Bill will become law; but I deeply regret that it does not deal with a hard-working class which has too long been neglected.
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDMy Lords, I rise with the greatest reluctance, but I feel compelled to join in the protest against the introduction of a Bill of this kind at this period of the session. We are on the eve of the holidays, and during the recess some of us may attend public meetings, and at these meetings the question is sometimes asked, "Is the House of Lords worth preserving?" What is the use of the House of Lords if a Bill of this magnitude and importance is to be presented at a time when it cannot be dis- 872 cussed, and when it is forced, practically, down our throats whether we like it or not? If ever there was a Bill which should be referred to the Standing Committee of your Lordships' House, it is the measure now before us; but yet so little regard have the Government to the functions of that Committee that they actually propose to pass the Bill without submitting it to the consideration and criticism of that Committee. My experience of the House is not large enough to entitle me to criticise its procedure, but the proposal of the Government appears to me so monstrous a proceeding that I trust I may be forgiven for raising my voice in protest against it.
§ On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
- Clauses 1 to 57 agreed to.
- Clause 58 amended, and agreed to.
- Clause 59 agreed to.
- Clause 60 amended, and agreed to.
- Clauses 61 to 81 agreed to.
- Clause 82 amended, and agreed to.
- Clauses 83 to 86 agreed to.
- Clause 87 amended, and agreed to.
- Clauses 88 to 92 agreed to.
- Clause 93 amended, and agreed to.
- Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to.
- Clause 96 amended, and agreed to.
- Clauses 97 to 102 agreed to.
§ LORD BELPERI now have to move the insertion of a new clause after Clause 102. As the Laundry Clause has been struck out, it is necessary to insert this new clause, which is taken from the Act of 1895, so that it may be consolidated with the rest of the law.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause after Clause 102:—
A laundry in which these provisions are contravened shall be deemed to be a factory not kept in conformity with this Act.
or in which not more than two persons dwelling elsewhere are employed."—(Lord Belper).
*LORD WINDSORmoved as an Amendment the insertion of the clause struck out of the Bill, modifying it, after the first three sub-sections, by the inclusion, as the fourth sub-section, of what was known as Mr. Talbot's Amendment—namely—
Where the only persons working in any laundry are the inmates of an institution of a reformatory character, and the managers of that institution represent in writing to the Secretary of State that any specified provisions of this Act cannot be carried out in that laundry without prejudicially affecting the discipline of that institution, the Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that this is the ease, by order, under Section 121 of this Act, modify the requirements of this Act in their application to that laundry.This Amendment, he said, appeared on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons, and, though it was not reached, he believed it had the approval of the Home Secretary. His Amendment, therefore, would consist of the first three sub-sections of the clause which had been struck out, Mr. Talbot's Amendment as the fourth sub-section, and the following as the fifth sub-section—Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there.It was admitted in all parts of the House of Commons except one—namely, by certain representatives from Ireland—that it was desirable to include laundries of all kinds in the Bill. As to the argument that the Bill could only be saved by the sacrifice of the provision respecting laundries, he admitted that it would have carried great weight if the measure had been purely of an amending character. But this was a consolidating Bill, which was supposed to gather together the complicated strings of various other Acts of Parliament, and make the law on the subject definite and capable of being easily understood. The Government intended to introduce a clause which would leave the law respecting laundries as it was at this moment. That was extremely unsatisfactory. The Home Secretary himself had expressed the view 875 that the present state of the law with regard to laundries was unsatisfactory and confused. There was evidence that in many instances laundries under charitable institutions were conducted in a way which would not be allowed if Government inspectors had to report upon them. It was a great blot on this measure that laundries should be excluded from the benefit of the Act. If an Amendment were made by that House he ventured to think that it would not be impossible for the Government to press it and pass it in the other House, though perhaps it might involve the addition of a few days to the session.
§ Amendment moved.
§ *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDMy Lords, there are so many topics dealt with in this Bill in which, during my parliamentary life, I have taken very great interest, that I trust your Lordships will allow me to deal with the critical situation which has now arisen. There is no member of the Government who does not admit that there is a great deal of force in the criticisms that have been made; it cannot be doubted that the position of this House in the exercise of its great and responsible duties with regard to this Bill is a very regrettable one. But it is necessary to treat this matter practically. It is useless for us to discuss upon whom the fault lies for the Bill being presented so late to this House; there have been circumstances of great difficulty connected with the action of Parliament during the present session, and I am sure the Home Secretary, who has shown the greatest interest in the measure, has done his best to produce it to your Lordships' House at the earliest moment.
But I am sure your Lordships will agree that if fault lies with anyone, there is one class to whom it cannot attach, for surely the factory operatives, on whom the disaster of this Bill being rejected will fall, have committed no fault. I venture, therefore, to beg of you to consider whether it will be wise, because it is thought someone is at fault, to throw the burden of that fault on those who would otherwise receive great benefits under the Bill? The measure is, no doubt, to a great extent a consolidating Bill, but it also contains new and improved 876 legislation. I could point to clause after clause which will confer immense benefit on those employed in factories and others. These clauses can, with your Lordships' permission, become law; and surely it is not advisable, because the Bill is not quite complete, to wreck it altogether. Lord Windsor has termed this till almost a perfect Bill, and yet because one clause is absent it is sought to throw out a Bill so full of benefits affecting the lives of factory operatives. I ask noble Lords to consider what will be gained thereby. You will be in no better position with regard to laundries, and you will have denied to the working classes the hundred beneficent provisions of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Windsor was perfectly correct in saying that the Home Secretary had declared that the state of the law with-regard to laundries was most unsatisfactory. My right hon. friend still entertains that view, and he has pledged himself to do his utmost to bring about an amendment in the law. I therefore, ask your Lordships not to refuse this beneficent legislation on account of the absence of one clause.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, the assumption which underlies the argument just addressed to the House is that it is quite impossible, if the Amendment is carried, to carry the Amendment also in the other House of Parliament. There is nothing to convince the House of that, except that the Government have been themselves convinced. I am not convinced at all that it is impossible. It is quite possible the Government may decline to undertake the labour of forcing the clause through the House of Commons, but that they have not the power to carry the Amendment through that House is a matter which I have not heard any argument sufficient to prove. Meanwhile it is proposed that a large section of women workers engaged in laundries who cannot protect themselves should be altogether excluded from the protection which is given to working women in every other industry. The position would be different if the Government said that they had the matter in their mind, and that they did intend to take it up, and not to leave the women employed in laundries outside the benefits 877 of the Bill. Am I to understand that that is the intention?
§ *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDThat, is exactly what I had hoped to say, if I did not say it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYAre we to understand that we may accept that as a distinct intention on the part of the Government to deal with the laundries in the next session of Parliament, or very soon afterwards?
§ *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDI cannot say next session, but at the earliest practicable opportunity open to us.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYThe statement just made alters the position very considerably, and I hope the Government will bear in mind what is implied in such an announcement of their intention, and that we shall not see these poor women left out of consideration for any considerable period, because there is difficulty in obtaining proper protection for them in the present session.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYI only wish to intervene for a moment in order to point out that the statement of the, noble Lord goes considerably beyond what the Secretary of State, said in the House of Commons. What the Secretary of State said was of the vaguest possible character. He said, if my recollection is clear, that he was not without hope that at some not remote period he might be able to deal with this question, possibly by an arrangement which he had hitherto failed to effect. That is very different from the promise which the most rev. Prelate has been given by the noble Lord.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERclaimed justification for saying something on this subject, inasmuch as he was himself the executive head of two of the largest institutions connected with the Church of England for the care and reformation of young women of the class referred to, and he also for many years had a place on the council of a third. To praise the devotion of the ladies to whom these duties were entrusted was unnecessary. Their work was beyond praise, but, so far as the Church of England Homes were concerned, he was anxious to emphasise the fact that, quite 878 apart from their earnestness and devotion to what they rightly deemed to be religious duty, they constantly endeavoured so to arrange their work and to manage their institutions as to fall into line with every reasonable improvement or regulation laid down respecting laundries and factories that were under Government inspection. He did not know what the motives were of those in Ireland who advocated the exemption of laundries from inspection if they were connected with religious communities, but he did know that the institutions on this side of St. George's Channel which were connected with the Church of England were not only ready to be inspected, but desired and welcomed it on every ground. Therefore they ought to be relieved from the suspicion, utterly untrue, of having joined hands with those who had asked to be relieved from periodical and reasonable Government inspection. The suspicion that those who asked to be relieved did so because of something of which they were ashamed might be unfair, but at least it was a perfectly natural suspicion. The institutions for whom he spoke were lumped together with those who were objecting on the other side of the St. George's Channel. It was an utter mistake. They desired the fullest light thrown on everything they did, and they were more than ready to accept direction and advice on all such matters as sanitation, safety of workers, and hours work. The right rev. Prelate read a resolution which had been unanimously passed by the council of one of the largest of these institutions connected with the Church of England, namely, the great Magdalen Hospital at Streatham, declaring that the inspection of laundries connected with religious and charitable institutions ought to be welcomed, provided always that power was left with the Government or the inspector to sanction such deviation from or modification in the rules laid down for public laundries as should render those rules applicable to institutions in which the workers were resident inmates for whose moral good the institutions were being carried on. That was, he said, the general opinion of those responsible for the management of these large institutions in connection with the Church of England, and it would be most unfair to them if that were not said publicly to-day.
§ LORD BELPERI should like to say, on behalf of the Home Secretary, that my right hon. friend has repeatedly expressed himself in the strongest way as anxious to see legislation passed in regard to this matter. I ask your Lordships to consider whether or not the Government and the Members of the House of Commons are better judges of the possibility of passing a measure like this if the Amendment is accepted than the Members of your Lordships' House? I assure your Lordships that the Government are as anxious as anyone to see legislation passed on this subject, and the Home Secretary authorises me to say that, although he cannot pledge himself with regard to the date, or whether next session, he hopes at an early period to be able to deal with this question and to find a satisfactory solution for it. I do not think that your Lordships can expect anything more clear than that.
§ EARL SPENCERI have already stated my views clearly, and I strongly support my noble friend Lord Windsor. I desire to see the Bill passed, though the Government has put the House in a curious dilemma. In the event of a division I shall vote with my noble friend, and the Government must take the responsibility.
§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDNo, you take the responsibility if you throw out the Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)I assure the noble Earl that those who are responsible to some extent for the Bill feel that if the Amendment is now carried it will inevitably result in the loss of the Bill. Noble Lords must be aware of the fact that at some periods of the session, particularly on the last day but one, it is almost impossible to procure a majority in matters in which there has been something in the nature of give and take in the House of Commons. I do not mean to say there has been any pledge; it does not amount to that. The theory was that it was agreed to let this question stand as it was, and the Bill has come up to your Lordships' House in that form. I hope that the question will not be pushed to a division. I have not calculated whether there are thirty Mem- 880 bers present, but, if there are not, then the debate is automatically adjourned until to-morrow. Is this a desirable position in which the House should be placed? I assure the noble Lord that, if the Bill is postponed over this evening, it will in all probability be lost.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYI am very far from wishing to cast any doubts on the anxiety of noble Lords opposite with regard to this legislation, but I would point out that their zeal would have been better shown if they had not pinched the House in the last two days of the session to carry this Bill, and if they had brought it before the House of Commons at an earlier date than the last few days before the end of the session. If that is the example of flourishing zeal which the Government show in this question, I am at a loss to know what halfheartedness is in a matter of this kind. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that, if the Government do not obtain a quorum, the Bill will be postponed until to-morrow, and it might, therefore, be lost. Whose fault will that be? Who possesses the whole confidence of this House? Who have the support of thirty Members behind them to form a quorum, and who can be summoned at an instant's notice? Yet the Government come to the House in the closing hours of the session, and, with a pistol at our heads, say that we must pass this Bill, or, if we do not, we shall show a want of zeal. I venture to think that this is playing with the House; it is deriding your Lordships; it is treating the House with less respect than it has a right to claim or expect. If the zeal of the Government is so great, where is the Prime Minister? The noble Marquess would at least be one of the quorum. Where are the other members of the Government—less conspicuous, but equally available for the purpose of a quorum? Before the responsibility is cast on noble Lords who insist upon a clause which they believe to be right, and still more on the Opposition, the House should have some clearer demonstration of the zeal of the Government than has been afforded with reference to their procedure this evening.
§ *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDI regret that the noble Earl has intro- 881 duced a tone of party conflict into this debate. The noble Earl asks, "Where is the zeal of the Government? Where are their followers? "I would ask the noble Earl, "Where are his followers?"
§ *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDI thought that, as the noble Earl spoke from the Table, he was speaking on behalf of others.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYThe noble Lord forgets that I have a right to speak from that position as a Privy Councillor.
§ *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDI can assure my noble friend that I will dispute nothing with him, but I hope he will let me say that I am sorry he was not in the House when I pointed out that there were probably some hundred beneficent provisions of this almost perfect Bill, which will tend to save human life and ameliorate the conditions of work in factories. If the Bill is thrown out noble Lords will not punish the Government so much as the people employed in factories anxiously hoping for the measure to pass.
§ EARL SPENCERThe noble Lord surely feels that the responsibility rests with the Government in not having their supporters behind them.
§ *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDThe responsibility rests with everyone. But the main consideration now is that every factory in Lancashire wishes this Bill to be passed; and I ask the House to consider the effect of saying "Yes" or "No" to the point under discussion. Surely as the present position, from whatever cause it has arisen, must be dealt with, the responsibility of throwing out the Bill will rest upon those who say "Not content" to the motion now before the Committee. Those who support the motion bear no share in the responsibility of rejecting the Bill.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERhoped the question as to where the responsibility lay in this matter would not divert attention from the real point. He expressed the extreme dissatisfaction which many noble Lords felt at the 882 result which had been arrived at on the question of laundries. From the result of private inquiries carefully made he believed that if the attendance of Bishops had been larger and if a division were taken the Bench of Bishops would almost unanimously go into the lobby and affirm the proposition that the institutions which they represented desired and invited inspection. The Government had been obliged to come to terms with a force of opinion representing a particular religious body, but apparently not even the whole of that religious body. It was a religious body in one part of these kingdoms only. But surely if private institutions were to be allowed to come into the competitive field against ordinary traders, and to make the claim that their business should be conducted secretly, and that they should be allowed any amount of control over those in the institutions, a claim of that kind ought at least to be made unitedly. It ought not to come from one section of opinion, and if from one section it ought not to be respected and deferred to.
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he must call attention to the extraordinary doctrines that had been enunciated. It was said that if a particuticular Amendment was carried the Bill must fail in the Commons. No doubt at this period of the session the Government majority was a doubtful factor; but the Government could try it. If the House of Commons refused to agree to the Amendment, the Bill would come back, and then, if the House of Lords persisted with the Amendment, there were other processes to arrive at an agreement. Lord James had said that this Bill had a hundred new points in it, and yet the House of Lords was told to take it or leave it, and, having had no opportunity of considering these new points, they were told that if they insisted on one Amendment the Government would not attempt to press the Bill. That was the way in which a Conservative Government supported the House of Lords.
§ On Question, new clause moved by Lord Belper agreed to.
§ Clause 103, amended, and agreed to.
883§ Clause 104:
§ EARL SPENCERI should like to ask what the intention of this clause is, and whether it will apply to dockers.
§ LORD BELPERI understand that the point has been very carefully considered, and that dockers do come under the clause.
§ Clause 104, and remaining clauses, agreed to, with drafting Amendments.
§ Amendments reported.
§ Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.