UNDERGROUND WORKROOMS BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 2 June 1913)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, this subject is not of so exciting a character as the one we have been discussing. The Bill, the Second Reading of which I am now moving, is a practical, prosaic measure. I am relieved from the necessity of going into it in any detail, because although it has a different name, and the drafting is somewhat different, all its essential provisions are, so far as I am aware, exactly the same as those contained 505 in the Factory and Workshop (No. 2) Bill which passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House last session. Therefore I do not think I need detain your Lordships more than a few moments. Certain processes and occupations are conducted in rooms more or less underground, and I believe that your Lordships agree that that is a condition of things to be viewed with very great suspicion. To ask people to work underground is a very serious demand to make upon the health of the community. I have taken some trouble to acquaint myself personally with the conditions of these underground workrooms, and when I state that, with the exception of the Saturday half-holiday and the Sunday rest, and perhaps a week's annual holiday, these processes and occupations are carried on all the year round by young persons of both sexes, in artificial light and with indifferent ventilation, for eight, nine, or ten hours a day, your Lordships will see that we are face to face with a situation which does require the serious consideration of Parliament.

This Bill is designed to mitigate the state of things to which I have referred. An "underground room" is defined, and then we say that the processes and occupations which are included in the Schedule are not to be carried on in underground rooms, except and until they receive a certificate from the' local authority that they comply with the regulations which are to be prescribed by the Home Office. That is to say, we do not interfere with the existing state of things until these regulations are issued; but after they are issued none of these processes or occupations can be carried on in these underground rooms henceforward unless and until the regulations of the Home Office are complied with. As your Lordships will see, this Bill follows very closely the whole series of Acts for which both Parties—the Party to which I belong more than the Party opposite—have been responsible, by which these processes of labour have been regulated.

In the clause which describes what the regulations are to be, power is inserted that a distinction may be made between existing premises and premises to be erected after the passing of the Act. The object of that is obvious. It is very difficult to make drastic rules in respect to existing buildings. Money has been 506 invested perfectly legitimately in the construction of these underground rooms, and trade carried on in them under the protection of the law as it exists at this moment has grown up, and it would be hard to come down upon the persons concerned and say that all these things are to be absolutely put an end to unless they comply with the regulations. Certain regulations ought in these eases to be complied with, but regulations relatively less drastic than in the case of future buildings. I say this with all the more emphasis because I am sure that in the case of a measure of this kind you will never get thorough administration if you have too many hard cases. When those whose business it is to administer the law see that to make the required regulations would inflict a great deal of hardship, they refrain from making them. If, however, in the making of regulations you allow a distinction between present and future buildings, then in all probability von will find that relatively moderate regulations will be insisted upon in the case of existing buildings, and yet the road will not be blocked to more drastic regulations in respect of buildings to be hereafter erected.

This distinction is not of an academic kind, because in London an immense amount of rebuilding is going on of large premises devoted to the retail trade of this city, and in this rebuilding the structures might just as well be properly as improperly built from the point of view that I am discussing at the moment. If Parliament will say now that certain regulations ought to be enforced, then these new buildings will be put up on good lines, and the mistakes in respect of artificial light will not be repeated. Therefore it is important that the distinction should be made, and at once. I think I have said sufficient to explain this Bill to your Lordships on Second Reading. I am quite aware that there are certain points upon which His Majesty's Government do not entirely agree with the drafting of the Bill as it stands. That will be a matter for us to consider at another stage; but I believe I command the support of both sides of the House, at any rate so far as the Second Reading of the Bill is concerned. I beg to move.

§ THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE)

My Lords, as the noble Marquess has truly said, this Bill is somewhat similar to the one that he introduced last session; but I should like to remind him that although he successfully carried that Bill through this House, he did so in spite of my protest on behalf of the Government with respect to some of the details which we considered undesirable. As regards the principle of this Bill, I can at once say that the Government entirely approve of it. Indeed, he would be a brave man in these days who would not be ready to assent to the principle that it is undesirable that work should be done underground except under the best conditions.

But while I am prepared to say that the principle of the Bill is excellent and that we are in entire agreement with it, I cannot help complaining that the Bill is very faulty in many ways. Take, for instance, Clause 1, First, it prohibits underground rooms in factories, workshops, and workplaces unless they have a certificate given by the district council. But there is a curious provision further down in the clause which, it seems to me, will to a very large extent nullify the immediate value of the Bill, and might even go so far as to nullify it altogether. I refer to the provision that the district council must be satisfied that the Home Office regulations have been complied with before any certificate can be given. Clause 8, which lays down the principle on which these regulations are to be made, is not a compulsory clause. It is open to the Home Office to adopt it or not as they please. It is therefore not at all necessary for any regulations to be made. I ask what will be the effect, seeing that there is no obligation on the part of the Home Office to make these regulations, if they do not make them, or if they do not make them for some years to come. What will happen will be that the whole Act will be null and void.

It may be argued, on the other hand, that the district council, in default of regulations being made by the Home Office, will be able to make them themselves. I very much doubt whether any lawyer in this House would be ready to say that the Bill could be interpreted by the Courts in that light. As we all admit that there should be these regulations, the sooner they come into force the better. Therefore I cannot understand why in this Bill the principle is not adopted that was 508 adopted in the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, Section 101, with regard to underground bakehouses. There the district council alone is the arbiter as to whether the conditions are such that a certificate should be issued, and the Home Office has no power to make regulations in the matter. It seems to me that it might be very desirable to adopt that plan, and I suggest to the noble Marquess whether he might not consider the adoption of the precedent of underground bakehouses and be willing to accept an Amendment on those lines in Committee No regulations have yet been made by the Home Office under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, as regards lighting. I mention that as showing how long it takes to make regulations. A Departmental Committee is now sitting considering the question of the regulations as regards lighting under the Act of 1901. It is clear that if the regulations in regard to lighting under that Act are not yet complete, it is unlikely that the regulations under this Bill would be issued for a long time.

In Clause 1 appear the words "As from the appointed day no underground room in a factory, workshop, or workplace …" I take strong exception to "workplace" being brought in. There is no definition in the Bill of what a "workplace" is, and there is no such definition in the Factory and Workshop Acts. As a matter of fact, "workplaces" do not come under the jurisdiction of the Home Office at all, and the Home Office have nothing at all to do with what goes on in workplaces. The only case in which the Courts have been asked to decide what is a workplace has been under the Public Health Act, and there the Court dealt only with the particular case at issue. It was the case of a cabyard, and after a great deal of argument the Court held that a cabyard was a workplace. This Bill, especially if the term "workplace" is included in it, will throw a great deal of additional labour on the officials of the Home Office, and it will also necessitate an undesirable addition to the number of officials. I have been accustomed to hear noble Lords opposite continually complain of the large expense involved in the increase of officials added by the present Government. It seems rather curious that members of the Opposition, while condemning this increase, should come forward with Bills like this, which must lead to a still further increase in the number of officials. Although we 509 welcome the Bill as regards its principle, there seems very little chance of its becoming law during the present session. The Prorogation is due in eight or ten weeks, so that there will not be much time; and however much the Bill may be amended it is doubtful in my mind whether it could be considered uncontroversial when it reaches the House. of Commons, and it is impossible at this stage of the session for the Government to take up a private Member's Bill which is contentious and assist its passage through the House of Commons. Therefore although, on behalf of the Government, I have to say that we welcome the principle of this Bill, on the other hand I do not think the noble Marquess can have any hope that the Bill will be placed on the Statute Book this session, and certainly I should be very sorry to see it pass without a great deal of amendment.