HL Deb 30 March 1916 vol 21 cc576-80

LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Paymaster-General what steps have been taken to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Committee on the Health of Munition Workers that "if the maximum output is to be secured and maintained for any length of time, a weekly period of rest must be allowed."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope you will pardon me for bringing up this matter for, I think, the fourth time. My reason is that I believe that protection of munition workers from overstrain is a national question of first-class importance. When the Munitions Department was appointed it set up an Expert Committee to advise on the health of the workers, and that Committee has already issued many very valuable Reports. Those Reports deal with many aspects of the question and include a large number of valuable recommendations to which the Committee evidently attach great weight. Incidentally they prove that there is a large amount of over-work now going on, and that the hours of labour generally are far longer than they ought to be in the interests of the health of the workers. The First Report which the Committee issued was on Sunday Labour and contains the words which I cite in my Question on the Paper. Nothing could be more clear and definite than those words. After personal examination of the conditions of labour, the Committee state that— if the maximum output is to be secured and maintained for any length of time, a weekly period of rest must be allowed. That statement corresponds exactly with my own experience in a time of war pressure, and I am certain that, apart from injury to the health of the workers, the output is actually diminished by overstrain.

The Fifth Report of this Committee was issued on January 16, and it deals with questions of overtime, night work and shifts as they affect men, women, girls, and boys in the factories. That Report plainly indicates that there are some practices now going on which ought to be abandoned without delay. When one recalls all that was claimed by advocates of the forty-eight hour week one realises how very far munitions work has departed from what was regarded as a reasonable maximum limit of the hours of labour. The Committee point out that— At one time cases of men working as much as ninety hours were common; more recently there has been a tendency to reduce them, but, even so, weekly totals of from seventy to eighty hours are frequent. Women in some cases are apparently working sixty-five hours a week, and the Report contains a strong recommendation that no woman should work more than sixty hours a week. That number of hours in the case of women who have never been in a factory before seems to me excessive. The Committee also demand that— Every effort should be made not to work boys under sixteen more than sixty hours. I think that also is a maximum limit for boys of that age. As regards male adults, the Committee say— The average weekly hours (exclusive of meal time) should not exceed sixty-five to sixty-seven hours, including overtime. And that means nineteen hours a week more than the forty-eight which used to be held as sufficient. A trade union official points out most justly to the Committee that— Where there is overtime beyond two hours daily there is evidence of fatigue, and men cannot be employed economically. The Committee carefully enumerate the dangers from overtime, amongst which they note this— The fatigue entailed increases the temptation to men to indulge in the consumption of alcohol; they are too tired to eat, and seek a stimulant. That sort of thing is going on, and it is a grave moral evil.

I will not weary your Lordships with any more quotations from this most significant Report. But it establishes the fact that a large number of men and women have been overworked for many months. Some injury must have occurred to them; and possibly in many cases, especially in the case of women, that injury may turn out to be of a permanent character. It may be taken as certain that the output of munitions cannot be increased and must be reduced in these circumstances. A man who works eighty hours and a woman or girl who works sixty-five hours must suffer and must be exerting far less than the normal effort which in itself is a demoralising condition. It is only by reasonably restricted hours that we can produce the best output without injury to the health of the workers.

When I last raised this question my noble friend Lord Newton said that I was "really asking more than the munitions workers asked for themselves," and he taxed me with believing that "the munitions worker was a helpless sort of individual incapable of protecting himself and looking after his own interests." I do not cherish that belief in the least, and I think my noble friend forgot the many inducement to long hours which now beset the munitions worker. Many men and perhaps most women are over-working from a sense of patriotism, and will break down rather than give in on the score of overstrain. In other cases, as a trade union official further told the Committee, "the possibility of getting more money has its effect." In one small factory of which I know a strike was threatened when the management proposed to abolish Sunday labour for a time. I believe that all employers would gladly welcome Sunday rest, and that it would increase output. But it would not be universally popular, and it would have to be made general; otherwise there would certainly he a tendency for the men to abandon factories where Sunday labour was stopped and go to those in which it was retained. After all the Reports and investigations which have been made, nothing of an effective character has yet been done as far as I can ascertain. Surely it is futile to call doctors into consultation and then to ignore their expert advice. These factories now, to a great extent, are controlled by the State, and I do think that a heavy responsibility rests upon the Ministry of Munitions for safeguarding the health of employees, and securing economic production. The health of the workers in these factories is, in my opinion, second only in importance to the health of our Armies in the field; and I earnestly hope that we shall be told to-day that steps will be taken to put an end to a state of things which is a growing danger and at the same time is diminishing the output of munitions and entailing a great waste of public money.

LORD ELPHINSTONE

My Lords, the noble Lord's Question is addressed to the Paymaster-General, but as it is one that closely concerns the Ministry of Munitions I have been asked to reply to it. Active steps have been and are being taken to give effect to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Health of Munition Workers Committee that all munition workers should have a weekly rest, preferably on Sunday. I think I may add that an increasing number of the manufacturers in this country now themselves realise that by instituting a weekly rest day they get in the six days a production equal to what they were getting formerly in a seven-days week.

Shortly after the issue of the Committee's First Report a conference was held at the Ministry at which the whole general question was carefully considered. The immediate result of this conference was the formation of a small Executive Committee to take all necessary steps to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report. This Special Committee at once issued a circular-letter to all controlled establishments, pointing out the injurious effect upon production of working excessive overtime and engaging upon continuous labour involving Sunday work. This circular suggested (1) that a weekly rest period, preferably Sunday, should be secured to all workers; (2) that even in cases where the work was necessarily of a continuous character and no arrangement for a general rest on any particular day could be made, it was desirable that all munition workers should have a regular period of rest, even if on different days.

The Ministry did not let the matter rest there, but subsequently addressed an inquiry to all the factories concerned, in which the following questions were asked: (1) The number of persons ordinarily employed on Sunday labour; (2) the hours worked and the intervals allowed for food on each day of the week; (3) the procedure as to shifts; (4) the pre-war practice; and (5) the firm's views as to the effect of any change upon their output. As a result of this inquiry the following information has been obtained regarding Sunday labour. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a mass of figures, but I may say that from the returns received and classified to date—and they number some 2,400—I see that no less than 60 per cent. do no Sunday labour at all. Of the remaining 40 per cent. many are employed on emergency work which must go on—namely, shipbuilding and repairs for the Admiralty, repairs to their own plant, keeping up furnaces, etc.; and, again, figuring in that 10 per cent. are a certain number of firms who are doing Sunday work with voluntary week-end workers. Your Lordships will have noted that a very large majority of the firms whose returns have now been classified employ no Sunday labour at all. Each of the comparatively few who do is being dealt with separately, sgradually all are being brought into line. It may be observed that the Committee has not confined itself merely to the issue of circular letters and making inquiries. Visits of inspection have been paid, and arrangements made for the provision of week-end labour. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that the Ministry has not allowed this important question to be lost sight of, and I hope he will also agree that the results achieved so far have been satisfactory.