HL Deb 04 June 1907 vol 175 cc421-34

House in Committee(according to Order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:—

THE EARL OF LYTTON

said he desired to put a question to the Government with regard to Subsection (b) of Clause 2. There was, he said, no mention in the Bill as it stood of any notice being required to be sent to the inspector as to the days of the week upon which a particular laundry elected the system of employment there set out. He understood, however, that by Section 32 of the principal Act notice would be required to be sent once in every quarter. There occurred in Section 32 of the principal Act the following words— The occupier of every factory and workshop…shall, subject to any special exceptions made by or in pursuance of this Act, specify in a notice— He feared that there was some danger that the words "subject to any special exception" might, in any subsequent proceedings, be urged as doing away with the necessity of sending any notice at all, inasmuch as the whole of this clause was an exception to the general Act. He would like to know if the Government had fully considered this point.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

assured the noble Earl that His Majesty's Government had considered the matter, and that in their opinion there was no doubt at all upon the point.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

moved to leave out subsection (d) which ran— (d) Different periods of employment may be fixed for different days of the Week. He did so for the reason that the "subsection seemed to him to tend to complicate what was already a very complicated measure. From year to year constant references were made in the various Factory Reports to the great difficulty of getting the Act understood, and to the fact that constantly in prosecu- tions which were instituted Under the Act for breaches of the law excuses were put forward on behalf of the guilty person that he was utterly unable to understand the law as it stood and the complicated notices brought before him. There was no doubt that this Bill would be a great improvement in that direction, but he maintained that this particular subsection tended in the direction of increased complication. Therefore, unless some very strong reason were put forward for its inclusion in the Bill he would ask the House to cut it out.

Amendment moved— In page 2. lines 21 and 22, to leave out paragraph (d)."—(The, Karl of Lytton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

expressed the hope that their Lordships would require further reasons before consenting to the elimination of a somewhat important part of the clause. As their Lordships were aware, by this clause laundries were brought under special provisions in a manner in which they had not been regulated up to the present time, and it had been thought only right that there should be a certain latitude in the matter. This was part of the general scheme by which His Majesty's Government had considered that they could meet the equity of the case and give that liberty in the management of laundries which they thought those institutions ought to have. The scheme was not so complicated as the noble Earl seemed to imagine. The factory inspector would have information as to where employment was going on at a specified time, and the inspectors would always be able under this subsection to visit a laundry if at any moment they had reason to suppose that employment was improperly taking place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:—

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

moved to leave out the words "or religious" from the second line of Clause 5, which ran — Where in any premises forming part of an institution carried on for charitable, reformatory, or religious purposes," etc He explained that his Amendment was intended in no way to be hostile to the object of the Bill. It appeared to him, however, that the words as they would stand if his Amendment were agreed to would be quite sufficient to include every case proposed to be covered by the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 16, to leave out the words 'or religious.'" —(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said His Majesty's Government were quite willing to meet the noble Lord on this point, and would agree to the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

moved to substitute the word "or" for the words "and not" in the beginning of Clause 5. As amended the clause would read— Where in any premises forming part of an institution carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes or subject to inspection by or under the authority of," etc. By the Bill as it stood all institutions which came under the authority of any Government Department other than the Factory Department were exempted from the provisions of the Bill. There were laundries attached to such institutions as industrial schools, orphanages, reformatories, workhouses, and so forth, which would all be excluded by the words as they stood, together with Clause 6 of the Bill. Surely it was just as necessary that dangerous machinery should be fenced in a laundry connected with one of these institutions as in any other. Indeed, it was even more necessary, because in a great many instances the people who had to look after the machinery in these institutions knew very little about it, and were not qualified to take care of it properly. Then, if this machinery was to be fenced, and if the sanitary conditions, ventilation, and so forth were to be properly regulated, it was obvious that such work could only be carried out by an inspector of the Department responsible for this sort of thing. No inspector under the Board of Education or the Local Government Board would be qualified to inspect laundry machinery, or to see that a laundry was properly ventilated. He supposed he would be told that the Government were now for the first time placing the services of the Factory Department at the disposal of other Government offices, but they were only placing those services at their disposal when those offices came to the Factory Department and asked for them. He could not help thinking that so long as the matter was left in that position the circumstances would be in the future exactly as they were at present—namely, that there would be no inspection at all, that machinery would remain unfenced, and that laundries requiring better regulation as regards ventilation, drainage, and such matters, would be left exactly as they were at present. Therefore he felt that, merely to meet what might be called departmental etiquette, a very serious evil would be left in existence. If the Government could see their way so to amend Clause 6 as to place the initiative with the Factory Department and leave the right of consent or refusal with the Department under which the institution came, he would be perfectly satisfied, and would be willing to withdraw his Amendment.. But unless they would amend the clause in that way ho, would be compelled to press his Amendment to a division.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'and not' and to insert the word ' or.'" — (The Earl of Lytton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said His Majesty's Government were quite ready to draft the clause in the way suggested, and he would bring up Amendments on the Report stage which he hoped would be satisfactory to the noble Earl.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

moved an Amendment to the first subsection, inserting after the reference to institutions in which manual labour was exercised the words "as a source of pecuniary profit to the institution and as one of the purposes and objects thereof." The Amendment, he said, was not intended in any hostile spirit. It appeared to him that the Bill as drafted spread the net rather too wide, and was liable to bring in places where work was not carried on as part of the ordinary working of the institution, but only as a secondary or temporary object. He did not conceive that it was the intention of the Government to include such cases and to bring institutions of this kind under the Factory Act; and to make that clear he moved his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 18, after the word 'exercised' to insert the words 'as a source of pecuniary profit to the institution and as one of the purposes and objects thereof.' "—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

assured the noble Lord that his Amendment was not necessary. So far as regarded institutions in which labour of this kind was only done occasionally, the provision would no more apply under this Bill than under the original Factory and Workshop Act; but, so far as pecuniary profit was concerned, he hoped that the noble Lord would not press the point, for the reason that there were instances in which the Government were anxious that institutions should be inspected, even though pecuniary profit was not made out of them. It was, indeed, one of the purposes of the Bill that the mere question of pecuniary profit should not be made a test as to whether inspection should take place or not.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said that, subject to any action he might consider it necessary to take on Report, he would for the present withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

explained that the object of his next Amendment was to remove any doubt there might be that the particular premises in which the work was carried on constituted the part of the building which was subject to inspection, and not any other part.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 23, after the word 'premises' to insert the words 'where such labour is exercised,' and to leave out from the word 'notwithstanding' to 'that' in line 24.'"— (Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

referred the noble Lord to the first line of Clause 5, which contained the words— Where in any premises forming part of an institution—" etc. Therefore it would only be that part which was affected by the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

called attention to the language of subsection (2) of Clause 5, which provided that, if the managers of an institution satisfied the Secretary of State, among other things, that the only persons working therein were inmates of the institution, or persons, not exceeding two in number, engaged in general supervision, an order might be made applying the principal Act to the institution subject to certain modifications. He asked their Lordships' attention to the phraseology of the subsection. He was not really sure what it was intended to mean. The question he wished to ask was, what was the legal interpretation of the word "inmates"? There was no definition in the Bill, and he wished to know whether it applied to those who were, in current phraseology, "inmates"—namely, persons who were objects of charity and were there for reformatory purposes—or whether it meant to include those who were engaged n supervision. He could hardly believe that matrons, superintendents, and so on were intended to be described under,he word "inmates." He thought the natural meaning of the word excluded hat suggestion, but if they were not included in the word it seemed to and them in this absurd result, that no institution, however large, could have more than two persons engaged in the supervision of the inmates. It was not quite clear on the face of the clause,what was meant, and he hoped that some definite assurance would be given that,he definition which seemed the natural one was not intended, and that words would be inserted to give its proper meaning.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 31, after the word 'persons' to insert the words 'dwelling elsewhere.'"— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

assured the noble Lord that in the opinion of the Home Office his fears were groundless. If he would withdraw his Amendment at the present time the Government would be willing to consider the matter carefully. If it were found necessary to amend the wording they would do so, but the present opinion of the Home Office was that such an Amendment would not be necessary.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

expressed the hope that they would have a definite assurance that in Standing Committee the point would be looked into, because those whom he had had an opportunity of consulting shared his doubts as to whether the provision was really workable in the form in which it was presented. Their Lordships would see that the sentence was an extremely involved one, and, in the interests of those who would have to work the Act and understand it, he thought the provision might be drafted in a more understandable form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

said his next Amendment proposed to leave out the whole of Clause 5 after the first subsection. If the clause remained as it stood the conditions of labour in the institutions dealt with by the clause would be left entirely vague. The only thing they would know was that each institution would have to submit a scheme and satisfy the Home Office that n its general respects it was not less favourable than the corresponding provisions of the principal Act. His Amendment proposed to omit all that part of the clause and to define in precise terms in the Bill what were the special exemptions which, by reason of their special character, ought to be allowed to these institutions. In support of the Amendment he urged, on the Second Reading, the immense amount of additional labour which would fall on the Home Office if it were called upon to look through all the schemes submitted; but he would not go further into that argument at the present moment. His objection to the clause as it stood was that every single point at the present moment in dispute with regard to the conditions which ought to prevail in these institutions was put on one side; not one of the points was settled, the whole thing was left vague, and those points were the very ones which required the most precise definition.

There were only three points of importance which could be dealt with under any scheme which an institution might submit to the Home Office—namely, the hours of work, the question of meal times, and the question of holidays. With regard to hours of work it would scarcely be contended, he thought, by any religious or charitable institution, that any licence should be given to work longer hours in such a place than were allowed under the ordinary law to commercial laundries. Nor would longer hours, he imagined, be allowed under the scheme, which had to be on the whole not less favourable than the provisions in the original Act. Therefore, there were only two modifications with regard to hours which could be asked for. One was that different periods of labour should be chosen from those allowed by the Act. The Factory and Workshop Act at present allowed the hours of labour to be from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., or from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. That, he thought, was sufficiently wide for any laundry. Those were limits arrived at, he might almost say by international agreement, and if institutions on charitable or religious grounds were going to ask to be allowed to begin work before 6 a.m. in the morning or to continue work after 9 o'clock at night, he could not help feeling very strongly that that was an exception that ought not to be made in their favour.

On the other hand, an institution might ask within those limits to be allowed a wider discretion; in other words, to be allowed to choose their own period of twelve hours between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock. If that was what they were going to ask for, it was exactly the situation which had caused so much trouble in the past and been objected to by factory inspectors. That loose system by which a laundry could choose its own period of employment did away altogether with the value of inspection. This was bad enough in an ordinary laundry; it was considerably worse in a laundry attached to a charitable or reformatory institution, because the only way the inspector could ascertain whether the law was being carried out was by questioning the inmates, and that was a course which should as much as possible be avoided. Those were the only points in regard to the question of hours which could be put into a scheme, and both of them, he maintained, in the interest of the institution themselves, ought not to be made matter of special exemption.

With regard to meal times, it was often urged by these institutions that it was impossible for them to conform to the provisions of the principal Act that all the inmates should take their meals at the same time, but there was a clause in the Factory Act which gave power for a variation in that respect. Clause 40 subsection (4) of the principal Act enabled the Secretary of State to make any exception in the case of a particular factory or workshop, where cause was shown, to enable the meals to be taken at different hours, so that in regard to meals there was no need for this exemption. There only remained the question of holidays, and that was a matter on which these institutions were entitled to some little consideration. If the condition of the weather or other matters were unfavourable and they wished to change their holidays at very short notice, he did not see why that liberty should not be given to them; but that should be put into the Act and should be definitely stated as an exception in their favour. That was what his Amendment proposed to do. In all other respects these laundries ought to work on the same conditions as commercial laundries with which they competed.

He would remind the Government that there was a possibility of objection being taken to their Bill from the other side, and that if the Bill were sent down with these points which had been for so many years in dispute unsettled considerable objection would be taken to the Bill as from a different quarter in the House of Commons. He would also remind the Government that the institutions themselves were not united in this matter. Among these institutions there was a progressive section and there was a timid and apprehensive section. Those who belonged to the former had constantly felt that the more the conditions of labour in the institutions were brought into line with those outside the better it would be for the institutions themselves. He was convinced—and he was sure the most rev. Primate would bear him out—that it was in the best interests of the institutions themselves that where they were engaged in industrial work they should frankly accept the conditions which had been accepted by and were enforced upon all bodies carrying out the same industrial work, and that it would only do harm to them in the long run if they claimed, on special religious grounds or in consequence of their special reformatory work, privileges which would only have the effect of arousing suspicion and mistrust. Therefore, unless the Government offered to amend in some form or another this clause as it stood in the direction of greater definition, he would respectfully ask the House to cut out the clause and substitute one of a more definite character.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line, 27, to leave out from the beginning of subsection (2) to the end of the clause, and to insert as a new subsection:—

  1. (2) In laundries attached to or forming part of any institution to which this section applies the following modifications of the law relating to holidays and notices shall have effect:
    1. (a) Subsection three of Section thirty-five of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, shall not apply, and the following provisions shall be substituted in lieu thereof: A notice of every holiday or half holiday must be forwarded during the first week in January to the inspector for the district, and unless the notice has been so sent, cessation from work shall not be deemed to be a whole holiday or a half holiday. Provided that any such notice may be changed by a subsequent notice sent in like manner not less than twenty-four hours before the holiday or half holiday to which it applies.
    2. (b) The managers of the institution shall not later than the fifteenth day of January in each year send to the Secretary of State a correct return in the prescribed form, specifying the names of the managers and 431 the name of the person (if any) having charge of the institution under the managers, and such particulars as to the number, age, sex, and employment of the inmates and other persons employed in the work carried on in the institution as the Secretary of State may require, and shall, if any requirement of this paragraph is not complied with, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

asked the meaning of subsection (d)— The provisions of the principal Act as to sending notices to the inspector shall not apply except so far as an order made by the Secretary of State may otherwise direct. If this meant that an institution was not, for instance, to be obliged to send notices of accident just as a trade laundry was, he would deprecate that in the strongest possible manner. He found it difficult to imagine what notices were hens referred to unless they were the notices regarding holidays about which the noble Lord had already spoken. The more consideration he gave to this question the more he felt himself coming to the conclusion that the justification for very exceptional treatment of institutional laundries was unnecessary and practically unworkable. He did not believe that institutions properly conducted need fear anything from inspection. This was a matter of administration rather than of legislation. If the administration was carried out by the Home Office in the way he believed it would be, he did not think the occasions would be at all numerous on which any difficulty would arise from inspection taking place in the ordinary way. He was strongly in favour of inspection by experts in machinery. While there were some few points on which special information was necessary, he felt that what the noble Earl called the timid section of managers must not be allowed to prevent the more trustful section of the managers of these institutions from claiming that protection for their inmates which would result from inspection, which was feared much more from ignorance of what it really meant than because of any real harm that it would do them.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

hoped the noble. Lord would not accept the very sweeping Amendment pro posed by the noble Earl. It would destroy the scheme which the Home Office had elaborated in concert with those who were for the first time to be brought under inspection. It would destroy all the elasticity which was necessary to the working of the Bill in these institutions. He agreed with the most rev. Primate that the institutions which dreaded the interference of a Government department were unduly apprehensive, but they were willing to try it loyally under the safeguards and conditions proposed by the Home Office in the Bill. The Amendment would re-open controversy, and the failure of the Bill in another place would be risked. There was no desire in the institutions for which he could speak that the hours of work should be longer than in commercial laundries, but i t was reasonable to ask that there should be greater elasticity in the arrangement of them. If any institution were caught even once deceiving the Home Office or its inspectors, there might be a penal power given to the Home Office to strike it out of the list of privileged institutions, but he would not harass those engaged in a difficult and delicate work by putting them all at once under the stringent regulations applicable to an ordinary factory. In regard to holidays, he would point out that it was one of the objects of certain institutions to teach their inmates lessons of self-control and discipline, and for that purpose the power of giving or withholding holidays was a valuable assistance. The public holidays were not the occasions on which to turn this class of inmate out into the streets. He had no desire that they should have fewer holidays, but the managers should have power to change the holidays or to substitute two half-holidays for one.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the noble Lord had expressed so admirably the views of His Majesty's Government, and he thought also the commonsense point of view, that he need not detain their Lordships at any length in further reply to an Amendment which went at once to the root of the part of the Bill under consideration. If the noble Earl would turn to the words of subsection (a), he would see that the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that the provisions of a scheme were not less favourable than the provisions of the principal Act, and there would be no unfair competition, therefore, with industrial laundries. For the information of the inspector the necessary particulars had to be entered in a register, and no notices would be required to be sent to the inspector except such as the Secretary of State might direct; but he could assure the most rev. Primate that notices of accident would be amongst those which the Secretary of State would expect to have sent to the inspector. The idea was that if the Bill became law there would probably be a conference between representatives of the Home Office and these institutions, and the general lines of a scheme would be laid down showing the conditions under which modifications would be allowed. In institutions dealing with women whose characters were not well regulated, it was essential for purposes of discipline that variation of the regulations applying to industrial laundries should be allowed, and the concessions corresponded generally with those asked for by a representative deputation to the Home Secretary upon the subject.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

replied, expressing himself as dissatisfied with the answer he had received. He denied that inspection would be obstructive to discipline, and quoted from a letter he had received from the mother superior of a large institution in favour of inspection as a help rather than a hindrance to the maintenance of discipline. There was enough elasticity in the provisions of the Factory Act to meet the conditions existing in institution laundries. He would not now press his Amendment, and withdrew it, but without prejudice to proposals he might make at a subsequent stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to, and Bill reported with an Amendment to the House.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

asked whether, in view of the noble Earl's intention to bring up Amendments on the Report stage, their Lordships would think it necessary to deal with the Bill in Standing Committee. The reference of the Bill to that Committee would somewhat delay matters, and time would be saved and two discussions prevented if the Amendments were dealt with on Report only. If that were agreeable to noble Lords opposite— and only if it were agreeable—he would move that the Standing Committee be negatived.

Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(Earl Beauchump)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Report of the Amendment to be received on Thursday next; and the Bill to be printed us amended. (No. 64.)