FACTORIES BILL.

HL Deb 12 July 1937 vol 106 cc238-336

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Temperature]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Amendment to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, after ("for") insert ("factories or for").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Lighting]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 15, leave out ("from any particular source of illumination") and insert ("by any particular illuminant").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Powers in case of default of a district council]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "has" ["district council has"] and insert "have." The noble Viscount said: In this case I do not think that Fowler can be quoted against me, because "district council" jumps from the plural to the singular. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 22, leave out ("has") and insert ("have").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19:

Self-acting machines.

19. —(1) In any factory or part of a factory to which this subsection applies no traversing part of any self-acting machine and no material carried thereon shall, if the space over which it runs is a space over which any person is liable to pass, whether in the course of his employment or otherwise, be allowed on its outward or inward traverse to run within a distance of eighteen inches from any fixed structure not being part of the machine:

(2) The foregoing subsection applies— (a) to any factory erected after the thirty-first day of December eighteen hundred and ninety-five; and

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after "erected," to insert "or part of a factory reconstructed, added to or extended." The noble Viscount said: If your Lordships will look at page 13, line 6 of the Bill, you will see that subsection (2) says: The foregoing subsection applies—

1. (a) to any factory erected after the thirty-first day of December eighteen hundred and ninety-five; and
2. (b) to any factory or part of a factory reconstructed after the passing of this Act; and
3. (c) to any extension of or addition to a factory made after the passing of this Act."

Therefore, subsection (1) does not apply to a factory erected before December 31, 1895, which has been reconstructed, extended or added to between the time of its erection and the passing of this measure. This position, I think, calls for some explanation, because such factory may have been enlarged out of recognition and yet it will escape the provisions of this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 7, after ("erected") insert ("or part of a factory reconstructed, added to or extended").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The effect of this Amendment would be to apply the requirement in subsection (1) retrospectively to factories erected before 1896, where there has been a reconstruction, addition or extension of the factory since that date. When the substance of subsection (1) of this clause was first enacted in the Factory Act, 1895, an exemption was granted for factories already erected on the basis that compliance with the requirement would in many cases involve substantial structural alterations. Neither that Act nor the next Act of 1901 provided that the requirement should apply to extensions of or additions to factories erected before 1896, and it hardly seems reasonable now to apply the requirement retrospectively to such extensions. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 19 will make it clear that the requirement is to apply to future reconstructions, extensions or additions in the case of an old factory.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If your Lordships are satisfied with that explanation I will be also.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20:

Cleaning of Machinery by women and young persons.

20. —A woman or young person shall not clean any part of a prime mover or of any transmission machinery while the prime mover or transmission machinery is in motion, and shall not clean any part of any machine if the cleaning thereof would expose the woman or young person to risk of injury from any moving part either of that machine or of any adjacent machinery.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after the first "not," to insert "without the consent of the Secretary of State." The noble Viscount said: In an emergency such as war it might be advisable that women or young persons should carry out the work that they are debarred from doing under this clause, and in my Amendment I have taken very good care to give a safeguard in the person of the Secretary of State.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 22, after ("not") insert ("without the consent of the Secretary of State").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The Amendment is one that provides that women and young persons may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, clean machinery. I may mention that during the live years period, 1931 to 1935, the accidents to women and young persons through cleaning machinery numbered 3,758, and it was considered desirable that this Bill should strengthen the existing law with regard to this point. The proposal which my noble friend makes, that exemptions might be made by the Secretary of State, would be not only extremely difficult to carry out, but would place an undesirable responsibility upon the Secretary of State himself and on our advisers in framing a list of cases in which the cleaning of machinery by women and young persons could be safely carried out. I might add that if we should accept this Amendment it would involve considerable weakening of the existing law.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Hoists and lifts]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("there") and insert ("rope or chain").—(The Bag of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 [Chains, ropes and lifting tackle]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The Amendment in my name is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 33, after ("premises") insert ("and no chain, rope or lifting tackle not shown in the table shall be used").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

Precautions in places where dangerous fumes are liable to be present.

27. —(1) Where work has to be done inside any chamber, tank, vat, pit, pipe, flue or similar confined space, in which dangerous fumes are liable to be present to such an extent as to involve risk of persons being overcome thereby— (b) no person shall enter the confined space for any purpose unless the following requirements are complied with:—

1. (i)all practicable steps shall be taken to remove any fumes which may be present and to prevent any ingress of fumes and, unless it has been ascertained by a suitable test that the space is free from dangerous fumes, the person entering shall wear a belt to which there is securely attached a rope of which the free end is held by a person outside; or
2. (ii) the person entering shall wear a suitable breathing apparatus;

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

These are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 19, line 41, leave out ("in the case of a circular manhole") and insert ("(if circular)")

Page 20, line 4, after ("wide") insert ("or (if circular) not less than sixteen inches in diameter").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved in, subsection (1) (b) (i), after "wear," to insert "a suitable breathing apparatus." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to minimise the risk run by men who work under dangerous conditions in confined spaces. Your Lordships will observe that in paragraph (b) of Clause 27 it is laid down that where there is any danger of noxious gases being present a test shall be made. If that test proves that there is no such danger, then, of course, no further steps need be taken to ensure the safety of the workers. If, however, the test shows that there is a risk of fumes being present in such a place then it is perfectly clear that further measures must be taken in the interests of the men who have to work in such places, and there are many people who feel that the safety requirements provided in paragraph (b) in such cases are not really adequate.

The alternatives provided are either that a man who goes down into a manhole or a boiler shall wear a rope, with somebody holding on to it who stands outside, or that the man shall wear a breathing apparatus. Supposing that the man after he has been working there for a certain time is overcome by fumes; supposing he is rendered unconscious or almost suffocated; it is not going to help him much to be pulled out by someone standing out of harm's way. Surely it is desirable, in order to avoid that risk, that every person who works there shall have a breathing apparatus, and this Amendment makes it necessary for the breathing apparatus to be used in all cases. I sincerely trust that the noble Earl will not give the answer which was given in another place, because I thought it exceedingly unsatisfactory, and I hope your Lordships will have the same reaction. Then it was said that it was uncomfortable for men to work with a heavy load of this kind, and that they would resent such a provision. That may well be so, but surely it is better to work in discomfort than risk a serious illness, or something worse.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 13, after ("wear") insert ("a suitable breathing apparatus").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The general rule that we have laid down in this paragraph is one that has been explained quite accurately by the noble Earl, and while I am quite prepared to admit that a breathing apparatus is most valuable for risky work or for entering into poisonous atmospheres for a short time, I am advised that the workmen, as the noble Earl mentioned was explained in another place, do find that this is extremely uncomfortable to wear, and does hamper their movements. The provisions of this clause have been worked out with technical advisers in order to provide every possible precaution for saving the lives of these men in confined spaces where dangerous fumes are likely to exist. I am advised that the clause as drafted is perfectly reasonable, and that it does not expose men working in these confined spaces to any risk whatever. I have no knowledge of any of these people to whom the noble Earl referred, who, he said, think that these safety requirements are inadequate. On the contrary, I am advised that the safety requirements provided in this clause are those which, in the opinion of the technical advisers to the Government, are the most desirable and useful.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I confess I am still not convinced by the argument that the people concerned would find the apparatus which I suggested inconvenient to work in, but as I have no support, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 [Precautions with respect to explosive or inflammable dust, gas, vapour or substance]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 8, leave out the first ("the").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 [Steam boilers]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 23, line 39, leave out ("in") and insert ("for the purposes of").

Page 26, line 3, leave out ("by the maker") and insert ("in the certificate referred to in subsection (9) of this section").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Means of escape in case of fire]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (8) to substitute "shall" for "may"—["the council may amend the certificate"].

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I accept this Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 8, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next four Amendments in my name are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 33, line 31, after ("appeal") insert ("by way of complaint")

Page 33, line 33, after ("the") insert ("final")

Page 34, line 29, after ("employed") insert ("in the same building")

Page 34, line 33, after ("employed") insert ("in the same building").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 [Regulations and by-laws as to means of escape in case of fire]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 32, leave out from ("bylaws") to ("factories") in line 33, and insert ("as to the means of escape in case of fire to be provided").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36, [Safety provisions in case of fire]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next five Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 36, line 15, after ("or") insert ("from any")

Page 36, line 29, after ("employed") insert ("in the same building")

Page 36, line 32, leave out ("factory") and insert ("building")

Page 37, line 7, leave out from ("exit") to ("other") in line 8 and insert ("affording means of escape in case of fire or giving access thereto")

Page 37, line 9, after ("distinctively") insert ("and conspicuously").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to insert at the end of the clause: (9) Where in any room in which persons are employed in a factory explosives or inflammable material are stored or used or accumulate, effective provision for fire extinguishing, either by way of water sprinkler apparatus or portable chemical fire-extinguishers, shall be made to the satisfaction of the inspector. The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to afford really adequate protection for workers against outbreaks of fire in certain types of factories. We are satisfied that, generally speaking, in the ordinary factory the existing means of protection are adequate, but we are not satisfied that in factories where there is inflammable material lying about, or where high explosives are stored, the present provisions laid down by Statute are sufficient. It will be observed that in subsection (7) special measures have been taken to protect workers engaged in that type of factory, because it will be necessary to make arrangements for warning to be given throughout the building as soon as a fire breaks out. It seems very doubtful that a fire alarm of that kind would be really sufficient insurance against danger. Surely a conflagration that got started in such a factory might well burn down the factory, and possibly injure the workers or blow up part of the factory before the fire brigade had had time to arrive on the spot. My Amendment aims at providing various forms of apparatus for fighting outbreaks of fire to be kept on the spot. Such things as chemical fire extinguishers and water sprinklers should surely be available on the premises themselves.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 21, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

We have gone very carefully into the whole question of this Amendment, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to insert a general requirement in the Bill such as the noble Earl suggests. We believe that the matter ought to be left to be dealt with by regulations framed in terms suitable to the particular class of factory. I am advised that in many parts of explosive factories the considered policy of the technical advisers to the Home Office is to require precautions to prevent the spread of explosions, and also to obtain the prompt evacuation of the premises in the event of a fire. The suggestion of the noble Earl for the provision of extinguishing apparatus would encourage the idea that persons should remain in the factory and put out the fire, and I am advised that a large number of lives have been lost in consequence of this idea. There are other ways, besides sprinklers and chemical fire extinguishers, for putting out fires, which may conceivably serve the purpose better. If we were to insert the Amendment it might, in some sense, be contrary to the interests of safety, and directly opposite to the object which the noble Earl has at heart. I hope, therefore, that he will not press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

If the noble Earl is right and lives are likely to be endangered by such a provision as I suggest, I will not pursue the matter. All the same, I do not feel completely reassured about the usual method of preventing explosions from extending from one part of a building to another, and of providing warning as soon as anything happens that might endanger the lives of the workers. But I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 37 to 40 agreed to.

Clause 41:

Supply of drinking water.

41.—(1) There shall he provided and maintained at suitable points conveniently accessible to all persons employed an adequate supply of wholesome drinking water from a public main or from some other source approved in writing by the district council.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER, moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "such approval not to be withheld except on the ground of the unwholesomeness of the water." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is proposed because fears have been expressed in various quarters that the local authority might withhold approval of a source of supply of water, not on evidence that the water is unwholesome, but merely because they thought it preferable that the supply should be taken from a public main.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 7, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 16, leave out ("workers") and insert ("employed persons").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42:

Washing facilities.

42. Where the Secretary of State is satisfied, as respects any process, that by reason of the amount of dust or dirt given off in the process or the dirty or offensive nature of the materials used in the process, a special need exists for the provision of washing facilities for persons employed in that process, he may by order direct that adequate and suitable facilities for washing (including a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels) conveniently situated shall be provided and maintained for the use of those persons and shall be kept in a clean and orderly condition.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to leave out all words down to and including "may by order direct that." The noble Earl said: I hope I shall be able to receive more support from your Lordships on this Amendment because it seems to be a case in which the Government themselves have been doubtful as to the proper line to take. When the clause dealing with washing facilities for people working in factories was inserted in another place it only contained provision that those engaged in particularly dirty or noisome processes should be able to wash themselves on the premises.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

May I interrupt the noble Earl? He will observe from my Amendment which comes later on the Paper that he is actually endeavouring to alter a clause which I am proposing should be omitted altogether from the Bill.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his point, but if he will allow me to continue my remarks he will see that I am perfectly conscious of the object that his proposed new clause sets out to achieve. I still prefer the alteration which my Amendment would make in the original clause, though I should be exceedingly willing to see it drafted in any form that the Government consider to be essential. I was saying that the Government themselves evidently had been in doubt as to the washing facilities to be provided. There was the provision which was included in this measure when it went through its stages in another place. There seemed at that time no desire on the part of the Government to enable men and women in factories, regardless of the particular factory or the particular process in which they were engaged, to wash themselves when they so desired. During the course of the debate in another place arguments were used which have evidently led the Government to modify their original attitude. We are extremely thankful that such a change of mind has occurred. It is a fairly straightforward and reasonable argument, which most people would accept, that people out at work all day require now and again to be able to wash themselves, and I have no doubt that your Lordships would be prepared to accept that argument. The Government have evidently considered this argument very fully, and in this proposed new clause which the noble Earl will move later they have gone a long way towards meeting this desideratum.

The reason I still want to urge acceptance of my Amendment rather than drop it and accept the new clause which the noble Earl will move is that if I have interpreted this new clause rightly—he will correct me if I am mistaken—it would not operate in exactly the same way as the Amendment I have put down. It seems to be, first of all, the case that as a general rule washing facilities shall be provided for all working people in factories. That appears to be laid down by subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, but from subsection (3) it would appear that the Secretary of State may exempt certain factories and certain firms from applying these regulations if he considers that the demand for washing facilities is unreasonable.

I am perfectly prepared to argue my case on the noble Earl's Amendment if he so desires, but if it is equally to the convenience of your Lordships I shall put forward my argument now so that it can complete the case to be made out for my own Amendment, and in that way I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating myself later. It is surely exceedingly difficult for the Secretary of State to decide whether it is unreasonable for people to expect they should be able to wash their hands. I cannot help feeling that the average individual would say, whether he occupied a seat in your Lordships' House or in another place or in any other spot where the world's work goes on, that he should have an opportunity at least in the middle of the day of going somewhere to tidy himself and get a good wash. I do not like the opportunity for exemptions that is provided by subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, and that is why I am urging your Lordships to accept my Amendment, of which the object is to provide exactly what the proposed new clause would provide under subsection (1) without allowing any exemptions on the authority of the Home Secretary on the ground that such facilities would be "unreasonable," a term of which there seems to be no exact definition. That is why I urge your Lordships to accept my Amendment or some modified form of it. I am quite willing to alter the drafting if the Government so desire.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 20, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 25.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The noble Earl, as I endeavoured to point out, is proposing to amend a clause which I propose in my next Amendment should be left out. It would perhaps be to the convenience of your Lordships that I should reserve my argument until I explain this proposed new Clause 42. I hope the noble Earl may withdraw his Amendment and allow me to move mine.

LORD STRABOLGI

I hope the noble Earl will not insist on that course. The Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Listowel is, I submit, far the simplest and best way of dealing with this particular matter. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will reconsider the matter and drop his Amendment altogether. Let us see what this proposed new clause does. It gives with one hand and takes away with the other. Subsection (3) gives very wide discretion to the Minister to exempt certain factories from the necessity of providing washing facilities for their people. What kind of factories has the noble Earl in mind? Can he give us an idea of the sort of factory or workshop where it is not necessary to have washing facilities for the people employed there? Can he tell us where it is not desirable that workpeople should have an opportunity to wash their hands before they have their midday meal? I hope my noble friend will stick to his guns and insist on his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The answer to the noble Lord would be this, that it is necessary that there should be sufficient elasticity under this clause. There is a number of cases where washing facilities are not really required. Under this Bill, we must remember, the joiner's shop, the carpenter's shop, and the dressmaking establishment all come within the definition of "factory" and in the case of the village carpenter, the village joiner, or the village dressmaker it is not necessarily required that these establishments should provide facilities for people who generally go home to their lunch and can wash there. It is absolutely necessary that the Home Secretary should be given some discretion to enable him to deal with these cases when they arise.

LORD STRABOLGI

I am very doubtful if the places described by the noble Earl, the village carpenter's shop and so on, are factories within the meaning of this Bill.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Yes, they are.

LORD STRABOLGI

In any case, why should not there be a hand basin and a towel and a piece of soap? I should have thought that would have been elementary. In the case of the dressmaker's shop I should have thought these facilities would have been more needed because, as the noble Earl knows, the modern young girl takes a great pride in her appearance, which is a very good thing too. Why should they be deprived in this way? As a matter of fact the dressmaking trade, which, as we know is a sweated industry, is the very one in regard to which this clause should be tightened up, and I am very alarmed by the noble Earl's examples of the sort of place he would exempt if he were drawing up these regulations.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL DE LA WARR)

What the noble Lord has not appreciated is this. One of the very advantages of this Bill is that the definition of "factory" is so very widely extended. As my noble friend has said, there are a great number of very small establishments, possibly situated in villages, to which even water may not be laid on, and where the two or three people who are employed are living a few doors away in their own homes. If we are going to have this very wide extension of the definition of factory and if, in addition, we are to have the wide power contained in this clause, then it is essential as a corollary to that that we should also have flexibility. The other way by which we should have to deal with this matter would be to have very much restricted powers. I suggest to your Lordships that you are going to get a great deal more in this direction by pursuing the method which His Majesty's Government are proposing to your Lordships.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I should like to support my noble friend in pressing this Amendment, because I think it is really rather objectionable that we should be left dependent on what the Home Secretary for the time being thinks reasonable or unreasonable. That is not the sort of definition that carries weight in an Act of Parliament, and I think my noble friend Lord Strabolgi put it perfectly satisfactorily when he said that even in the small establishments there is no reason why a jug and basin and a piece of soap should not be supplied. I object to these exemptions unless they are defined. Here we have an undefined exemption resting on the discretion of the Home Secretary. I think that is an objectionable thing to introduce into a clause of a Bill and I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment.

LORD ADDISON

May I also intervene for a moment to support my noble friends in this? The noble Earl must be well aware that the smallest establishments to which the noble Earl referred are amongst some of the very worst and most unsatisfactory establishments. A large number of them are grubby beyond words. It is not, I suggest, a wide extension of the Bill to say that there should be a little soap and water and a towel. It really cannot be described as a wide extension of the Bill. I cannot imagine any dressmaker's shop or any other one of these establishments, especially the smaller ones, in which facilities of that kind would not be entirely reasonable.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I cannot understand the fear of noble Lords opposite about the Secretary of State, because they are always saying that within a very few months or years they will be in power and they can then rely on their own Home Secretary.

LORD FARINGDON

I would like to point out that if I have read it correctly the Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Munster, is about to move seems to me to compare rather unfavourably even with the clause as it stands. In the existing clause I think the phrase is "including a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels." I can find no mention of that in the clause as the noble Earl is about to move it. In any case whether we carry our Amendment or not, and I trust we shall do so, and whether or not the noble Earl carries the new clause, I hope he will at least introduce what is now being Dressed for.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

There are two suggestions before your Lordships. One is the proposal of the Bill, which is to allow the Secretary of State to define standards (which seems to me to be very necessary) and the other is the proposal in the Amendment which does not, as I read it, provide for that. Therefore the clause, as I read it, as proposed by my noble friend on the Opposition Benches, is not complete. Secondly, the Bill provides for exemptions, and the Amendment would not allow any exemptions in any circumstances. I was anxious to hear what classes of establishment were envisaged as requiring exemptions, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill gave some examples arising out of the fact that the Bill now extends enormously the application of the term "factory." If the Bill had followed the old lines in the definition of factory as distinct from a workshop the situation would be rather different, but now it includes work-places of every kind. I can well conceive that there might be little village establishments which rank technically as factories but which no one would regard as in the least like a factory, and that to apply elaborate standards under the rules of the Secretary of State to establishments of that sort might appear to be unreasonable. On the other hand, my noble friends say: "Why, for that reason, give an unlimited power to the Secretary of State without any control at all?" It appears to me that the right course would be to consider this clause a little further, and to allow the Secretary of State some powers of exemption, but a limited power of exemption and not a universal power of exemption, in applying the clause to small establishments. We have in mind all sorts and classes of factory which we should not wish to see exempted. I would venture to suggest that perhaps that point might be considered further.

EARL DE LA WARR

I was going to make that suggestion myself. I know that in another place, and indeed here as the discussion has shown, there is a very strong feeling on this particular point. My right honourable friend in another place made it very clear that he is anxious to arrive at a clause that would be agreeable to all parties. What I was going to suggest to your Lordships was that perhaps you might agree to the insertion now of the clause in the name of my noble friend Lord Munster, with a perfectly clear understanding that the House is free either to amend it or discuss it again on Report. There is one small point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon—the question of towels and soap. Actually the reason why those words came out was that it was intended to widen the scope of the clause and make it very much more general, but if the Committee feel strongly on that matter we are prepared to give an undertaking to consider that also. It is obviously not a question of principle. It was in the Bill before and probably it can go in again if it is considered to be a better form of drafting.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

May I add to what the noble Earl has said? I have a first-hand acquaintance with these conditions, and I know it is nearly always the practice now for the people employed to bring their own soap and their own towels because they do not want to use the towels and the soap which are sometimes provided and used by other people.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I hoped after the persuasive words that fell from the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches that the Government might have been induced at any rate to suggest some sort of compromise that would satisfy those who have criticised the Government's clause as an alternative to the Amendment I have just moved; but, judging from what the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal has said, although the Government might be prepared to meet the point raised by my noble friend Lord Faringdon, they are not going to consider, at any rate at this stage, the very fundamental point urged by my noble friends on these Benches. The noble Viscount referred to the specification of standards according to which the Secretary of State would be able to judge whether an exemption should be made or not. We have been putting forward the view that if such exemption is desirable, it is, at any rate, necessary that a standard should be laid down which would provide exemption in certain cases but which would not overburden the Secretary of State in his exceedingly difficult task of discriminating according to the recommendations made to him by his technical advisers.

It is exceedingly disappointing for us to observe that the Government do not appear to be willing, at this stage, to make any concession of that kind. The noble Earl opposite said the matter could be discussed again on Report. Any Bill can

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

EARL DE LA WARR

I beg to move the omission of Clause 42. We have had a full discussion on the matter already but perhaps I may be allowed to give to your Lordships an assurance on the part of the Government that, although you have supported us in this matter, we will willingly look into the question of the wording of the new clause to see if we can meet one or two points, especially that mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. We will try to see whether somehow or other we can, not exactly define, but imply, the type of exemption necessary. I will give an undertaking

be discussed again on Report, but it does not necessarily mean that we shall obtain any satisfaction from the Government. We are placed in a very difficult position; because we cannot vote against the clause which the noble Earl has put down, as we are satisfied that at any rate it makes a certain advance towards the position that we consider desirable. We are therefore in the position of having to urge our Amendment in order to assert the principle of profound dissatisfaction with the clause as it stands in the name of the noble Earl opposite as an alternative to the measures that we desire to be taken. I am therefore unable to withdraw this Amendment.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 39; Not Contents, 6.

CONTENTS.
Halifax, V. (L. President.)	Bertie of Thame, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
	Mersey, V.	Kilmaine, L.
De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Samuel, V.	Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
	Swinton, V.	Melchett, L.
		Moyne, L.
Salisbury, M.	Clwyd, L.	Newton, L.
	Doverdale, L.	Rea, L.
Airlie, E.	Dunleath, L.	Redesdale, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)	Rennell, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]	St. Levan, L.
Munster, E.	Gainford, L.	Seaton, L.
Onslow, E.	Greville, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Stanhope, E.	Hastings, L.	Stanmore, L.
Strafford, E.	Heneage, L.	Strickland, L.
	Holden, L.	Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Addison, L.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) [Teller.]	Hay L. (E. Kinnoull.)
Faringdon, L.		Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
		Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

that we will look into the matter without any delay.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 42.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert the following new clause:

Washing facilities.

"42.—(1) There shall be provided and maintained for the use of employed persons adequate and suitable facilities for washing which shall be conveniently accessible and shall be kept in a clean and orderly condition.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe, either generally or as respects any class or description of factory or as respects the persons employed in any process, a standard of adequate and suitable washing facilities.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt any class or description of factory from the requirements of this section where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special conditions under which work is carried on in that class or description of factory, compliance therewith would be unreasonable, and the superintending inspector for the division may by certificate exempt, subject to any conditions specified in the certificate, a factory from the requirements of this section where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the factory, compliance therewith would be unreasonable.

(4) This section shall come into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine:

Provided that, as respects persons employed in any process in which lead, arsenic or any other poisonous substance is used, or any process prescribed by the Secretary of State, being a process liable to cause dermatitis or any other infection of the skin, this section shall come into operation at the commencement of this Act."

The noble Earl said: I beg to move the insertion of the new clause standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 30, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord, Lord Addison, has handed in a manuscript Amendment to leave out the words "of the skin" in the last line but one of the proposed new clause.

LORD ADDISON

I hope the noble Earl will accept this Amendment, because as he may perhaps remember—at all events it is a fact—during the War time we found, for example, a very large number of people infected in the factories with T.N.T. poisoning. At first the infection was thought to proceed through the skin. When the people came out of the factories their skins were somewhat stained by this stuff and the infection was thought to be through that channel. As a matter of fact subsequent research showed that at all events a considerable percentage of that infection was clearly traceable to the fact that the people had their hands all stained; they put their hands to their mouths and so on, and the infection was in fact through the mouth. There is no point and I can see no advantage in retaining the words "of the skin." As it would stand then it would mean that as respects any persons employed in any process in which lead, zinc or other poisonous substance is used, or any process prescribed by the Secretary of State, being a process liable to cause dermatitis or any other infection, this section shall come into operation at the commencement of this Act. I also hope that you will not confine the other infections to infections of the skin. There might be other and quite serious infections.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— In the proviso leave out ("of the skin").—(Lord Addison.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My noble friend Earl De La Warr gave the assurance that the Government would look into the wording of this clause between now and the Report stage. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to withdraw this Amendment now. I am not knowledgable on what occurred during the War and it will require a certain amount of discussion and examination before we can give an opinion on that point. If the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment, with of course the right to him to bring it up again on the next stage, I should be grateful.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRABOLGI

Before we leave that, my Lord Chairman, might I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill if he will consider this also before the Report stage? This point has not been referred to yet. In the new clause two years have to elapse except in regard to these especially poisonous occupations. It seems rather a long time. Why two years? It does not take two years to fit up washing facilities.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I think the answer to that question is that many factories have not got washing facilities provided in the building. It is thought that by that date all the existing factories which have not got washing facilities will have them.

LORD STRABOLGI

But why wait for two years? Why not a year only?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There are so many factories that it cannot be done before that date.

LORD STRABOLGI

Really I must protest. I do beg the noble Earl to look into this matter again. With very great respect, it does not take two years to fit up washing facilities anywhere. This does not apply to the modern factories, which have them as a matter of course; it is only the little sweat shops you are legislating for and they can do it anyhow. I do hope that this matter will be looked into. Two years seems too long a time.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43:

Accommodation for clothing.

43.—(1) There shall be provided and maintained for the use of employed persons suitable accommodation for clothing not worn during working hours; and such arrangements as are reasonably practicable shall be made for drying such clothing.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

1. (a) prescribe, either generally or as respects any class or description of factory, a standard of suitable accommodation for clothing, and for drying such clothing;
2. (b) exempt any factory or class or description of factory from any requirement of the foregoing subsection where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special conditions under which work is carried on in that factory or class or description of factory, the requirement would be unreasonable.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 32, after ("person") insert ("adequate and").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is practically drafting; it is intended to remove an ambiguity that exists.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 34, after ("practicable") insert ("or when a standard is prescribed, such arrangements as are laid down thereby").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert: (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe, either generally or as respects any class or description of factory, a standard of suitable accommodation for such clothing and of arrangements for drying such clothing. (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt any class or description of factory from the requirements of this section where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special conditions under which work is carried on in that class or description of factory, compliance therewith would be unreasonable, and the superintending inspector for the division may by certificate exempt, subject to any conditions specified in the certificate, a factory from the requirements of this section where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the factory, compliance therewith would be unreasonable. The noble Earl said: Although this looks a very formidable Amendment, it is, I am advised, practically drafting, and there is nothing to which I think I need draw your Lordships' attention.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 36, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 44 to 47 agreed to.

Clause 48:

Washing facilities and meals in certain dangerous trades.

48.—(1) Where in any room lead, arsenic or any other poisonous substance is used, or any process prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of State is carried on, being a process liable to cause dermatitis or any other affection of the skin, adequate and suitable washing facilities shall he provided and maintained for the use of persons employed in that room and shall be kept in a clean and orderly condition.

(2) Where in any room lead, arsenic or other poisonous substance is so used as to give rise to any dust or fume, a person shall not be permitted to partake of food or drink in that room or to remain in that room during the intervals allowed to him for meals or rest.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 1, leave out subsection (1).—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of subsection (2), to add "other than intervals allowed in the course of a spell of continuous employment." The noble Earl said: The effect of this Amendment is to provide that persons need not be turned out of a workroom during a short interval of less than half an hour allowed during the course of a spell of work. This Amendment brings the clause into line with Clause 86. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 13, at end add ("other than intervals allowed in the course of a spell of continuous employment").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The last Amendment, at the end of subsection (3) is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 19, end add ("other than intervals allowed in the course of a spell of continuous employment").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49:

Protection of eyes in certain processes.

49. In the case of any such process as may be specified by regulations of the Secretary of State, being a process which involves a special risk of injury to the eyes from particles or fragments thrown off in the course of the process, suitable goggles or effective screens shall be provided to protect the eyes of the persons employed in the process.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after "shall," to insert "in accordance with any directions given by the regulations." The noble Earl said: This clause as it stands at present leaves the employer free to choose whether to provide goggles or screens. The fact is that, as in many cases goggles may be less satisfactory and uncomfortable to wear, screens ought to be definitely used where practicable. The present Amendment is proposed, therefore, in order to empower the Secretary of State to give direction on the use of screens where this is found desirable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 36, after ("shall") insert ("in accordance with any directions given by the regulations").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5o and 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 [Humid factories]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 45, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert ("spinning of merino or cashmere by the French or dry process or the spinning or combing of wool by that process").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 53:

Underground rooms.

53.—(1) No work shall be carried on in any underground room (not being an underground room used only for the purpose of storage or for some purpose excepted by order of the Secretary of State) which is certified by the inspector for the district to be unsuitable for the purpose as regards construction, height, light or ventilation, or on any hygienic ground, or on the ground that adequate means of escape in case of fire are not provided:

Provided that, where the inspector certifies as unsuitable any room which is in actual use, he shall suspend the operation of the certificate for such period as he considers reasonable with a view to enabling the occupier to render the room suitable or to obtain other premises.

(2) In the case of any underground room which at the commencement of this Act does not form part of a factory or is not used as a workroom in a factory (other than for the purpose of storage or for some purpose excepted as aforesaid)—

1. (a) the occupier shall, before the room is used as a workroom as aforesaid, give notice in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars to the inspector for the district; and
2. (b) shall not use the room for any such process as may be prescribed, being a process of a hot, wet, or dusty nature, or which is liable to give off any fume, without the consent in writing of the inspector for the district.

(3) If the occupier is aggrieved by any decision of an inspector under this section he may, within one month of the date of issue of the certificate or the refusal of the consent, as the case may be, appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, and, pending the determination of an appeal against a decision under subsection (1) of this section, no offence shall he deemed to be committed under that subsection in respect of the room to which the appeal relates, and the decision of the court shall in all cases be binding on the occupier and the inspector.

LORD FARINGDON had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "State" and insert "unless it is certified by the inspector for the district to be suitable for the purpose on hygienic grounds, and in particular as regards construction, light, ventilation, and adequate means of escape in case of fire."

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has handed in a manuscript Amendment to his Amendment. That is to say, in the fifth line, the last line but one of the Amendment on the Paper, after the words "as regards construction" to add the word "height." That is to say, it would read as follows: As regards construction, height, light, ventilation —and so forth.

LORD FARINGDON

This is an Amendment to which we on this side of the Committee attach a great deal of importance. It was moved in another place and the difference of attitude between ourselves and the Government appeared to be that of rather a negative control against the positive control of the use of underground rooms, as we should prefer it. The fact, of course, is that employees are apt to be afraid of reporting the unsuitability of the premises in which they are employed. We therefore think it very much better than no underground premises should be allowed to be used at all without certification by inspectors. Of course I have no doubt, and I think it is obvious, that all good employers whose underground rooms were satisfactory would naturally immediately apply for certification, whereas, presumably, the bad ones would not apply. Therefore, although it has been urged in another place that to make this certification compulsory for all underground rooms would entail a large increase of inspectors, we on this side feel that no duty of an inspector could conceivably be more important than the prevention of the use of unsuitable rooms, and more particularly underground premises, than which, as your Lordships may well imagine, no place could be worse for any kind of work.

It has been urged incidentally, I believe, also that some of these rooms are used for heavy machinery. I am advised that this is not really a valid objection; in any case it applies particularly to the printing trade, and I gather that in no case would any of these printing works have accommodation which would be considered uncertifiable as suitable for use. It has also been urged that this is a thing which the inspectors are well aware of already; in fact, we are told that the present inspectors have, as it were, a black list of such premises which would immediately be closed down. The two arguments, of course, rather cancel each other out: either you will not need an enormously increased number of inspectors, or else they do not know where these bad places are and have not got a list. The Government cannot have it both ways, and I suggest that if it is a question of the appointment of new and more inspectors, which in any case will have to be done under this Bill, this is one of the very best reasons for appointing them.

Another objection which has been put forward is in connection with underground bakehouses, which in 1901 were forced to be certified. We, on this side, have an Amendment about bakehouses further on. I think it was pointed out in another place that the certification of bakehouses had proved unsatisfactory, and that was the reason why we also put down an Amendment on that subject. There are reasons for it, upon which I will enter shortly. It seems to me very much more desirable that we should set at once a high standard for these premises, which are premises particularly liable to be unsuitable for occupation by working people. I think we should immediately set a high standard and see that it is enforced. I do not believe that any of the really good employers would really suffer by it. They would all apply immediately for certification, and it would enormously reinforce the effect of this Bill. Evidently the Government are in agreement with us as to the desirability of improving and controlling these premises, and I suggest that our Amendment would strengthen the Bill in this respect.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line to, leave out from ("State") to the end of line 19, and insert ("unless it is certified by the inspector for the district to be suitable for the purpose on hygienic grounds, and in particular as regards construction, height, light, ventilation, and adequate means of escape in case of fire").—(Lord Faringdon.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Let me at the beginning of my remarks remove any idea which may exist in your Lordships' minds that in all cases these underground rooms are dark, gloomy, and unsuitable for employment. I am advised that that is not always the case. As Clause 8 stands at present all underground rooms will have to comply with the new provisions in this Bill as to lighting, cleanliness, ventilation, temperature, and any other changes which may be proposed in the Bill during its journey through Parliament. Furthermore, I would like to remind the noble Lord who moved the Amendment that the large number of underground rooms which were exempted in the 1901 Act will now be brought into line with this Bill, and they will now come within the definition of this clause. Again, as the clause stands, the inspectors will take action in cases of really bad underground rooms as soon as the Act comes into operation. If the Amendment were accepted it would be necessary to postpone the date on which the clause would take effect, and for this reason, that time would have to be given for all underground rooms which come within the scope of this clause to be inspected and given or refused certificates, as the case may be.

I think we have gone a long way to meet the very point which the noble Lord has at heart, by inserting subsection 2 (b), which, quite shortly, provides that in future an underground room is not to be used for certain processes without the inspector's consent. I think the procedure proposed by this clause is really the best method of dealing with underground rooms generally. The clause as it stands was amended and strengthened in another place, and I would ask your Lordships to believe me when I say that it does, in our opinion, give ample powers for the very purposes which the noble Lord has most in view.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one word on this clause, because I have a certain parental interest in it. Twenty-five years ago I was successful in passing through this House a Bill which would have done everything which the noble Lord opposite desires to have done, if Parliament had been willing to accept it. This House accepted it—I think I did it two years running—but it was always stopped in another place. It was not that the majority of members of another place differed from it, or that the overwhelming majority of another place differed from it, but that there were one or two members who objected to it, and as no time could be given to a Private Member's Bill, as is generally the case, and as the rule applied that opposed business could not be taken after a certain hour if objected to, that Bill was stopped. For twenty-five years this grave case of neglect in our legislation has never been remedied. I cannot forebear from a certain feeling of indignation that that should be the case. I think it is a strong comment upon our institutions that such a thing should have been possible, when you think of all the trouble and time that we have taken about legislation in the last twenty-five years, a great deal of it in my judgment not nearly so important as a small measure to prevent the misuse of underground rooms, and think that that legislation was stopped, not because Parliament differed from it, but because, by the working of our institutions, it was impossible to get it through. I think we ought to realise with some modesty what blemishes there are in our institutions.

As regards the Amendment, I earnestly hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will do everything that he can to make this clause efficient. Whether it is necessary to go quite so far as the noble Lord opposite suggests I would not like to express an opinion, but if between now and the Report stage my noble friend in charge of the Bill sees reason to strengthen the clause I hope he will do so. Of course I cannot say what is the condition of underground workrooms now, but I know what those rooms were like twenty-five years ago, because—I will make a confession—I visited a large number in London, and I was shocked at the condition of things in which people were compelled to work in the heart of our Metropolis, right in the middle of the West End. As I have said, I do not know what is now the condition of things. Probably it has much improved, but I hope my noble friend will inquire from his Department and make quite sure that this clause is strong enough, before we part from the Bill.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Undoubtedly I can give the noble Marquess that assurance, and promise to examine the clause in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord opposite and of the noble Marquess.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Perhaps I may make an observation. The main argument of the noble Earl opposite against the Amendment was that it would mean the postponement of the whole of the operation of this clause, until time had been given to allow the inspectorate to examine and certify the very large number of underground work-places affected. But I do not see why that necessarily should be so. Why should not the clause come into operation as now proposed with an addition fixing a certain date, say two years hence, and that after two years from now underground work-places should not be allowed to be used unless certified as suitable by the Home Office under the provisions of the Bill? You could thereby combine the powers that are already in the Bill to enforce by the inspectors proper standards, wherever they come across the particular case of default, with the desire, which I think is most reasonable on the part of the noble Lords by my side, that in future such standards should be insisted upon by Parliament as should obviate the defects to which reference is made, and with regard to which the noble Marquess who has just spoken made such interesting observations. I feel sure that the whole House will agree with the noble Marquess that Parliament ought to endeavour to remove effectively grievances so grave as those of which he has just spoken, and the course which is smiled on by the representative of the Government might enable the object both of the Government and of the Opposition to be achieved.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Viscount has made a very important proposal, and I do not think he would expect me to give any reply at the moment, but, without any commitment at all, we will certainly look into the matter.

LORD FARINGDON

Of course, I do not consider the reply of the noble Earl by any means satisfactory, but in view of the very considerable pressure which has evidently been brought to bear on him from all sides of the House, he has taken a rather more conciliatory tone, and if he is really prepared to give this clause reconsideration between now and the Report stage, whilst retaining my own liberty at that stage I shall be pleased to withdraw the Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 46, line 23, leave out ("other than") and insert ("or is used only")

Page 46, line 25, leave out ("as a work-room as aforesaid") and insert ("for work for which it may be certified as unsuitable under this section").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "one month" and insert "twenty-one days." The noble Earl said: The effect of this Amendment is to reduce from one month to twenty-one days the period for appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 35, leave out ("one month") and insert ("twenty-one days").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Of the next two Amendments the first is consequential and the second drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 46, line 37, after ("appeal") insert ("by way of complaint")

Page 46, line 38, after ("the") insert ("final").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3), after "section," to insert "in the case of a room in actual use." The noble Earl said: Under the Bill as it stands it is not an offence, pending the determination of an appeal, to continue using a room which the inspector has certified to be unsuitable under subsection (1), but there seems no sufficient reason why, when the room was not in actual use, the occupier should be allowed to start using it before the appeal is decided. That is the object of this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 39, at end insert ("in the case of a room in actual use").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54:

Basement bakehouses.

54.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing section, a basement bakehouse shall not be used as a bakehouse unless it was so used at the date of the passing of this Act and a certificate of suitability had been issued by the district council under an enactment repealed by this Act in respect thereof, and any basement bakehouse which, for a period exceeding twelve months, is not used as a bakehouse shall not be so used again.

(2) it shall be the duty of every district council to carry out, in the year beginning at the date of the commencement of this Act and in every fifth succeeding year after that year, an examination of every basement bakehouse in respect of which a certificate of suitability has been issued and—

(b) if the council are satisfied that the bakehouse is suitable as regards the matters aforesaid, they shall give notice in writing that the certificate shall continue to operate until their next examination of the bakehouse

LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (1), after "Act," where that word first occurs, to insert "and in any case shall not be so used after the expiration of five years after the date of the passing of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is a very straightforward Amendment, and one which, I suggest, strengthens the Bill, and it is certainly overdue. It was the intention to abolish underground bakehouses in 1891; that is to say, thirty-six years ago. It is suggested in this Amendment that the owners of these bakehouses—if such incidentally are certified or could be certified as reasonably passable—should be given another five years, after which underground premises should not be allowed to be used in any circumstances whatever for this purpose. I suggest that that is entirely reasonable. It is utterly and completely impossible that premises used for baking underground should really be hygienic. The temperatures in these places are colossal. I myself was taken to visit one the other day, and it was really a Turkish bath. I do not know what the temperature was, but I was informed that it was over 100. This is an employment which we should be entirely justified in prohibiting from taking place underground. Of course, the idea of using underground premises is that the first floor premises can be used for show-room and shop. I do not think in any case that that would be a reasonable ground for making people work in such conditions, but in point of fact I am informed that although the old-fashioned oven was a very cumbersome affair, made of brick—which of course it would have been difficult to put on an upper storey—in the case of modern ovens they are of metal and of no very great weight, and therefore can be put in some other position without any difficulty. It really does seem that forty-one years would be reasonable notice to give before closing down premises of this type!

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 14, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Faringdon.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Under the present law a basement bakehouse may not be used as a bakehouse unless it was so used in 1895; and the Act of 1901 provided that after 1903 even these old underground bakehouses should not continue to be used unless certified by the district council to be suitable for the purpose. Under the Bill it is proposed that a review of certificates is to take place immediately at the date of the commencement of the Act, and every fifth year after that date as well. If we were to accept this Amendment we should be laying a ban on all basement bakehouses at the end of five years, and we should be saying that all those which are known to exist to-day are entirely unsuitable for baking purposes. That, I understand, is not the case. Nearly all the basement bakehouses which still exist are occupied by small concerns, and those small concerns are rapidly disappearing, either through the failure of the business or owing to purchase by the larger undertakings, which invariably close down the bakehouse and carry on baking at their own bigger establishments. We are satisfied that we are providing proper hygienic and sanitary conditions in bakehouses by this clause, and we are not prepared to bring to an end the life of the smaller classes of master bakers five years hence.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "until their next examination of the bakehouse" and insert "so long as the bakehouse may otherwise lawfully be used, but without prejudice to the power of the council to revoke the certificate as the result of a subsequent examination under this subsection." The noble Earl said: It would not be correct, as it says in the Bill, to give notice that the certificate will continue to operate until the next examination of the bakehouse. It is obvious that the council could not reach a decision as to whether to revoke or continue the certificate until after their next examination.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 38, leave out ("until their next examination of the bakehouse") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next three Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 47, line 43, after ("appeal") insert ("by way of complaint")

Page 48, line 3, leave out from ("operate") to ("or") in line 5 and insert ("as if a notice had been given under paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection")

Page 48, line 6, at end add ("and pending the final determination of the appeal the certificate shall continue to operate").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

LORD FARINGDON moved, after Clause 54, to insert the following new clause:

"Prohibition of night-work in bakehouses.

.—(1) Subject to such exceptions as may be allowed by special order made by the Secretary of State, no person shall be employed in the manufacture of bread or flour confectionery, or in any other process ordinarily carried on in a bakehouse, between the hours of eleven in the evening and five in the morning.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of any body representative of the employers or workers in the baking industry in any district, by special order prohibit any person who carries on within the district the manufacture of bread or flour confectionery, or any such process as aforesaid, whether he does or does not employ any other persons in his business, from being himself engaged in the manufacture or process between the hours of eleven in the evening and five in the morning.

(3) This section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine:

Provided that if a joint application is made to the Secretary of State by any body or bodies representative of the employers and of the workers in the industry in any district the Secretary of State may, by special order, direct that this section shall come into operation in that district at such earlier date as may be fixed by the order."

The noble Lord said: This is an extremely important clause which we are asking the Government to insert. As a matter of fact, the honourable gentleman who moved it in another place spoke for forty-five minutes. I am not going to do that. We are actually the only remaining country which allows night baking to continue. In 1925 there was passed at Geneva a Convention to abolish this particular practice. The British Government did not oppose it in principle. They criticised details, and in the end abstained from voting. I hope that since 1925 the British Government have considered the matter further and will give this Amendment favourable consideration. A Departmental Committee was set up which, in 1909, reported on this night-baking. Their Report was unanimously in favour of abolition. I know His Majesty's Government may reply that there is at the moment a Committee sitting, but I would urge upon your Lordships the desirability of taking this step without waiting. It seems to me we have sufficient authority in favour of this abolition. It was as far as I know first urged as long ago as 1860 by Lord Shaftesbury. At that time this particular practice had drawn the unfavourable comment of humane men. It seems to me something of a reflection on ourselves that for a matter of seventy years we have continued with this system.

As a matter of fact there is a certain amount of very interesting information on this matter. Since other countries have abolished the system they have been able to experience the advantages of abolition. It is proved that night-baking can be abolished without in any way raising the cost of bread and without forcing people to eat stale bread. In point of fact it has been found that those who wish to do so can get their bread even fresher than they do under the present system of night-baking in this country. Finally—and this is a consideration which I hope will appeal to your Lordships—it has been shown that employers themselves do not suffer any set-back in their business. The Irish Free State abolished night-baking a short time ago and, according to the new figures, big business houses no longer baking at night have in fact made a somewhat larger profit than they did before. On all these considerations I hope your Lordships will give this Amendment your support and that His Majesty's Government will accept it.

Amendment moved— After Clause 54 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Faringdon.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The noble Lord is correct when he says that this question has been one of controversy for some years. I was very sorry that he should have thought it unnecessary to await the Report of the Committee which is now sitting under the Chairmanship of Lord Alness and that he should bring forward this clause to prohibit night work in bakeries. I have nothing to add to what was said during the journey of this Bill through another place—namely, that this Committee is now sitting and examining this question, that a Report is expected shortly, and that the Government have given an undertaking to examine it with great care. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment and wait until that Report sees the light of day.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

I quite understand that the Government have to wait for the Report of this Committee, but I must express real disappointment that the Committee has not so far reported. I feel that this is a matter where reform is long overdue. I was first of all brought into contact with this problem many years ago in the district in which I was visiting as a curate. There was a number of people who had to do night work. Most of these were on night work only for periods, but the baker was on night work continuously. Most of the bakers I knew then were suffering in health and their family life was seriously injured by this system. The demand for the abolition of night work among bakers is, of course, no new thing. As the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, it has been advocated year after year. There is a very strong feeling in favour of it, and although quite understand the difficulty the Government are in on account of this Committee, if the matter is taken to a Division I shall have no option but to vote for the Amendment.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

It is undoubtedly the case that there is a strong desire for this reform. Certainly the work-people who are engaged in this particular trade are most eager to be spared the discomfort, and indeed the hardship, of continuous night work. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has given as a reason against this Amendment that the matter is under consideration by a Committee appointed ad hoc, and that is a reason that must weigh with your Lordships, but I share the regret of the right reverend Prelate that the Report of that Committee is still not forthcoming. When this matter was debated in another place the Government apologised for the delay in the presentation of the Report and said they had hoped it would have been before Parliament in good time for this Bill. A member of this particular Committee, who spoke in another place, said the Committee had used their utmost efforts to have the Report ready in time, but it was not ready in time because this Bill had come on seven or ten days earlier than had been expected. That was a month ago, on June 15. We are now in the middle of July, and it is a disappointment that Parliament, in dealing with an important Bill which is the proper vehicle for the introduction of a reform of this kind, is not provided with the evidence and with the expert and impartial opinion of the Committee appointed to deal with the matter.

The Chairman of the Committee, Lord Alness, a member of your Lordships' House, has, I have no doubt, made efforts, but it is unhappy, to say the least, that the efforts have not been successful, and the House should express its regret that it has not been provided with the material on which to form a judgment. The Secretary of State said in another place that if by the time the Bill came to this House the Report was available the Government would certainly take the matter into account in connection with this Bill. I am sorry the Government have not been able to say that they have brought such pressure to bear on the Committee; so that, a full month afterwards, the Report is still not to hand. I do not know whether it will be possible to consider this by the Report stage. The interval between the Committee and the Report stages is short, and I doubt whether it would be possible, but I certainly think a strong moral obligation rests on the Government, if the Report of the Committee is favourable, to take measures in the near future to deal with the matter by special legislation.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

May I ask the noble Earl whether it is likely that this Report will be available before the Bill is passed?

THE LARL OF MUNSTER

As I stated, when this Report is received the Government will give it most careful consideration. I have heard that it is hoped that the Report will be signed by the Committee to-morrow. Perhaps that will relieve your Lordships of some doubt.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

When will it be published?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am not in a position to say that, but I can inform the noble Viscount that it will be signed to-morrow.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Does the noble Earl think it will be possible to consider this at a later stage of the Bill in this House?

EARL DE LA WARR

We have only this very moment received this message —I think from the Chairman of the Committee. I do not think the noble Viscount would ask us to go further than the assurance that my right honourable friend gave in another place when this matter was up, that, as soon as the Report is received, it will be taken into consideration at once with regard to the future of this Bill.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I support very warmly what has fallen from the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches and also from the right reverend Prelate, because there was a suspicion that this Report was being shelved. It certainly was curious, as this Bill was coming forward at this particular moment, that the Government should not have considered the Report before dealing with this particular question. I think we might have some assurance, now that the Government have been good enough to tell us the Report is to be signed tomorrow.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

It is hoped that it will be signed to-morrow.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

It is only hoped. I do not think that is quite good enough. I thought the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said it was to be signed to-morrow. If it is only hoped, there is no chance of this matter being dealt with in this Bill. Therefore I think, even if it is only by way of protest, that we ought to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Faringdon. He put the case very clearly, and I think there must be a general feeling of sympathy with the Amendment that he has moved. I do feel that at this time of day, in our so-called civilisation, we ought to reduce the number of people who are obliged to work at night. It is really very terrible to deprive any human being of the light of sunshine. I think that this is an opportunity to move forward rather strongly, emphatically and clearly by way of a Division. The Government really seem to be at sixes and sevens, not knowing whether the Report is going to be signed, not knowing whether it is going to be signed in time for the alteration to be made in the Bill, and being, of course, entirely ignorant of what the Report is.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I should like to be clear on this point. Suppose the Committee reports contrary to Lord Faringdon's ideas, will Lord Faringdon be prepared to have the clause out again?

LORD FARINGDON

I do not change my ideas.

LORD ADDISON

May I appeal on a matter of procedure? If this Report is to be signed to-morrow—at least the noble Earl hopes it will be; let us hope his hope will be realised—it only makes the position impossible for this House in Committee when we are not in possession of the Report. It is clear the Government may not have had time to consider it and decide what its policy should be upon it, but I think that before this Bill passes altogether from the House your Lordships ought to be in possession of a copy of the Report. Can the noble Earl give us any assurance as to the publication of the Report so that we can be informed by it before the Report stage? If the report is known to exist I think Parliament is entitled to be acquainted with it before it leaves an important matter of this kind.

LORD GAINFORD

I should like to appeal to the Leader of the House on this point. Could he not meet the views of a great number of your Lordships in undertaking at any rate that the Report should be published as soon as it is received or within a very short number of hours afterwards, and could be not also undertake that the Report stage of this Bill shall not take place before at least this day week, or at any rate that we should have a reasonable opportunity of knowing what is in the Committee's Report before the Report stage of the Bill is taken?

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX)

I think your Lordships will have realised that that is an undertaking that it is quite impossible for me to give. I am not able here and now to commit my right honourable friend to publish a Report the day after it is received, and even if the Report were so published I should anticipate that, if the days are running as fine as appears from the progress of this debate, it would be highly unlikely that any Government with the best will in the world would be able to give an undertaking now to legislate within a few days on a matter that has been engaging public attention and public controversy for a great number of years. It would be, I should think, a highly improper and undesirable thing to undertake, and if the undertaking were given it is more than likely it would be quite impossible to carry it out. I myself sat on a Committee on night baking in the year 1919 which furnished what I thought then was a very wise Report. No Government yet has been able to act upon it. Therefore, with the best will in the world, I should be quite unwilling and unable to give my noble friend the undertaking that he asks for.

At the same time I think, if I may say so with respect, that it would be unreasonable on his part, and on the part of those acting with him, not to be prepared to give full weight to what fell from my noble friend behind me just now—namely, the reminder of the undertaking that the Government had given that as soon as the Report was in their hands they would waste no time in trying to give it consideration and, I think I understood him to say, sympathetic consideration. If that is so, it is quite obvious that if and when the Report is furnished, and if and when the case is made out for legislation, there would be a strong moral obligation resting on the Government to take whatever action seems right in the light of it. I understand it is at present proposed to take the Report of this Bill on Thursday week, the 22nd. Therefore, while I shall certainly make it my business to communicate everything that has been said by noble Lords opposite and by noble Lords on the Liberal Benches to my right honourable friend in another place, I am afraid I cannot, with the best will in the world, give the actual undertaking for which the noble Lord has asked.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I am sure the Leader of the House would agree that the whole situation is really very unsatisfactory. Here we have a question, affecting closely the lives of a considerable number of people, that has been under discussion for some thirty years. It is nearly twenty years since the noble Viscount himself was a member of a Committee dealing with the matter. A Departmental Committee is appointed to consider it. That Departmental Committee is about to issue a Report. A Bill dealing with the same subject, or with an analogous subject, is before Parliament. Instead of every effort being made to bring this Report forward so that Parliament should have it and should be seized of all the facts when it is legislating, this Report has dragged on apparently, and although a month ago it was said that it was only a matter of seven or ten days that lay between the House of Commons and the consideration of the Report, here a month later we still have not got the Report and it is to be published or to be signed the very day after a discussion in the House of Lords.

It is said: "Well, we can legislate on another occasion." That no doubt is quite true, but everyone knows what the pressure is in Parliament and how difficult it is to get through short Bills, especially if they are small in their scope. The noble Viscount said that this question of the recommendations of the Report will have the consideration of the Government, and even the sympathetic consideration of the Government. But sympathetic consideration may go on for another twenty years. There may be consideration, there may be sympathetic consideration, but it may be wholly inactive consideration. None the less, and for my own part, I confess I find it very difficult to vote now in favour of this Amendment without seeing the Report, because the Report when it appears may contain conclusive arguments against a proposal precisely of this kind. I think that this House would be well advised to say that we are deeply concerned about the matter, that the House is by no means satisfied with the situation in which Parliament has now been placed, and that we emphasise and underline the view expressed by the Leader of the House that there shall be a strong moral obligation on the Government, in view of all the circumstances, that, if the Report is in favour of effective legislation, to carry that recommendation into effect without delay.

LORD SANDHURST

May I suggest that the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches has produced for us the very finest possible reason why we should not support this Amendment? He says that the situation is unsatisfactory. That may be his view of the situation. At the same time I suggest that for us to agree to an Amendment which may be directly contrary to the findings of the Committee and cause us to eat our own words in the course of a few days would be infinitely more unsatisfactory.

LORD FARINGDON

I am sorry my noble friends and myself on these Benches find the reply of the Government on this subject extraordinarily unsatisfactory. In fact, the whole situation could not be worse. As the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches has said, it really does seem extraordinary and most highly regrettable that the Report on this particular subject should be going to be signed the day after this Bill has been before your Lordships. In point of fact it is not quite fair to say that the Government have got to consider this Report at length when they receive it, because this matter

Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.

Clause 58:

Prohibition of employment of women and young persons in certain processes connected with lead manufacture.

58. A woman or young person shall not in any factory be employed in any of the following operations:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had Amendments on the Paper to make the beginning of the clause read: "A woman or young person shall not be employed in any factory" etc. The noble Viscount said: Instances of roundabout English occur in many clauses of this Bill which I can supply to your Lordships either for amusement or condemnation, if you are sufficiently interested. I have refrained from trying to amend the others, but in this case the language is so peculiarly eccentric and foreign that I

has been under discussion, not for mere than thirty years, as the noble Viscount said, but, as I pointed out, for seventy-seven years. This prohibition has been established in every country except our own, so that we have very good reason for our Amendment, quite apart from the Report of the Committee. As a protest against this most unsatisfactory position in which the Government have put us, we intend to divide on this subject.

On Question, Whether the said new clause shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9: Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.
Winchester, L. Bp.	Askwith, L.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]
	Faringdon, L. [Teller.]
Addison, L.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Arnold, L.		Snell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Iddesleigh, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
	Iveagh, E.	Heneage, L.
Halifax, V. (L. President.)	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Holden, L.
	Mar and Kellie, E.	Howard of Glossop, L.
De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Kilmaine, L.
	Munster, E.	Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
	Stanhope, E.	Moyne, L.
Argyll, D.	Wicklow, E.	Redesdale, L.
		Rennell, L.
Airlie, E.	Bertie of Thame, V.	St. Levan, L.
Bessborough, E.		Sandhurst, L.
Feversham, E.	Doverdale, L.	Seaton, L.
Howe, E.	Elton, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
	Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)	Templemore, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

think it merits correction. If your Lordships look at the clause you will see that it reads "A woman or young person shall not in any factory be employed in any of the following operations." I think it should read: "A woman or young person shall not be employed in any factory in any of the following operations." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 22, after ("not") insert ("be employed").—(Viscount Bertie of Thorne.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 23, leave out ("be employed").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 [Provisions as to employment of women and young persons in processes involving use of lead compounds]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

This is the same point as in Clause 58. The first Amendment I have put down to this clause is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 33, after ("not") insert ("be employed").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 39, leave out ("be employed").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.

Clause 62:

Power to take samples.

(2) The occupier or the foreman or other responsible person aforesaid may, at the time when a sample is taken under this section, and on providing the necessary appliances, require the inspector to divide the sample into three parts, to mark and seal or fasten up each Part in such manner as its nature permits, and—

1. (a) to deliver one part to the occupier, or the foreman or other responsible person aforesaid;
2. (b) to retain one part for future comparison;
3. (c) to submit one part to the analyst; and any analysis under this section shall, if so required, be carried out by a Government department.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert: The result of any analysis of a sample taken by an inspector by virtue of this section shall not be admissible as evidence in any legal proceedings under this Act, unless the following requirements have been complied with that is to say, the inspector shall, forthwith after taking the sample, notify to the occupier the inspector's intention to have it analysed and shall there and then divide the sample into three parts, shall cause each part to be placed in a suitable container which shall be sealed up and marked, and shall—

1. (a) deliver one part to the occupier and
2. (b) retain one part for future comparison, and
3. (c) if he thinks fit to have an analysis made, submit one part to the analyst."

The noble Viscount said: The subsection which I propose in place of subsection (2) is adapted from the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Bill, Clause 10 (2). That Bill, when it was last before your Lordships' House, came before us under the auspices of His Majesty's Government, and I believe that it is now law. It seems to me a very reasonable subsection, far more reasonable than the one I am asking your Lordships to leave out. Why should not the owner or occupier of a factory have the same protection as is given to the owner or occupier of trade premises? Your Lordships may notice that the marginal notes in this Bill and in the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Bill are very similar. In this Bill the marginal note is "Power to take samples" and in the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Bill, the marginal note is "Power to take samples of trade effluents." For the reasons stated I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act, to which the noble Viscount has referred, does not, I am advised, altogether fit in with the scheme of the present clause which was devised to meet somewhat different circumstances. As those circumstances are rather long and complicated, perhaps the noble Lord would let me communicate them to him privately.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I am quite prepared to adopt the suggestion of my noble friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 agreed to.

Clause 63 agreed to.

Clause 64:

Notification of accidents in factories.

(3) Where any accident to which this section applies occurs to a person employed and the occupier of the factory is not the actual employer of the person killed or injured, the actual employer shall, if he fails to report the accident to the occupier immediately, be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3) before "fails," to insert "wilfully." The noble Viscount said: The actual employer may be unable to report the accident immediately owing to absence or illness, and yet he will be liable to the penalty. It is quite usual to insert the word "wilfully" before the word "fails" in such cases, and I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 7, after ("he") insert ("wilfully").—(Viscount Berlie of Thame.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am advised that if we inserted the word "wilfully" into this clause it would have the effect of excusing the employer if he failed to report inadvertently or even owing to negligence. My noble friend must be aware that if the owner of the factory happens to be away either through absence or illness, he will no doubt have left someone there to represent his interests.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I have the honour to agree with my noble friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64 agreed to.

Clauses 65 to 69 agreed to.

Clause 70:

General conditions as to hours of employment of women and young persons.

70. Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to overtime and to the special exceptions allowed under this Part of this Act, the hours worked, the period of employment, and the intervals for meals and rest, for every woman or young person employed in a factory shall conform to the following conditions, namely:—

1. (a) the total hours worked, exclusive of intervals allowed for meals and rest, shall neither exceed nine in any day nor exceed forty-eight in any week;
2. (c) a woman or young person shall not be employed continuously for a spell of more than four and a half hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal or rest, so, however, that where an interval of not less than ten minutes is allowed in the course of a spell, the spell may be increased to five hours;

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert "It shall be unlawful for a young person under the age of fifteen years to be employed in a factory, and". The noble Earl said: We are now coming to what I think the general public, as well as those of us who sit on these Benches, regard as the most important clauses of the Bill from the standpoint of the general welfare of the workers. Among the most vital Amendments that we shall move is the one which stands in my name on Clause 7o. There is at this moment a very widespread opinion, not merely in educational circles but also among the general public—an opinion that was expressed recently in speeches made from all sides during a debate in another place—that the time has come when children of fourteen should be exempted from employment in industry. It was remarkable that when this Bill was being considered in another place so many individuals representing different parties and different points of view should have expressed the opinion that a change of this kind was now desirable.

I am sure that your Lordships are familiar with the arguments for taking this step. It is a matter, I think, of general agreement that the accident-rate is higher among juveniles than it is among older industrial workers. This is clearly because young people are less able to look after themselves than are adults. Under the present Bill boys and girls between fourteen and fifteen will be working eight hours a day for five days in the week and four hours on the sixth day, the Saturday morning. Surely the consequences of such a long day's work for a child of fourteen are exceedingly obvious, and from the child's point of view extremely injurious. There can be no question that when so little time remains, and when the child is already exhausted by the strain of working for such a considerable spell, it would be unable to profit from whatever means of recreation are afforded in order to build up its physical strength. The same consequence applies equally to the opportunities it may have for continuing its education by attending classes. A day of eight hours for any child of fourteen would be so long as to render the benefits of both physical and intellectual education extremely few and far less effective than they would be if it were possible for the child to remain at school.

Our contention is that the time has now come when children should remain at school as a general rule until the age of fifteen. We cannot regard "beneficial" employment under the Education Act which the Government have just passed as being justifiably extended to include employment in industrial processes. If it is urged, as it has always been urged when any attempt has been made to exempt young people from industrial employment and to raise the school leaving age, that this will cripple industry, surely the answer is that whenever such a step has been taken in the past it has never to any appreciable extent diminished our industrial prosperity. It may be said with some justification that the industrial entrepreneur would have to adapt his concern to a reduction of the inflow of juvenile workers. That being so, it would surely be possible to postpone the operation of an Amendment such as the one standing in my name until the time when the Education Act becomes effective: that is to say, by allowing boys and girls of fourteen to continue at work until the autumn of 1939 you would give an adequate opportunity to the employers to take steps to meet their requirements when no more children of that age were forthcoming, and you would prevent any drastic or inconvenient reorganisation of industry. I am convinced that the time has come for this very great reform and that in the long run it is in the interests of industry and of economic prosperity as well as in the interests of the young people concerned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 18, at the beginning insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

As I have on the Paper an Amendment identical with the one which has just been moved, I think it would be convenient if now I rose and joined with the noble Earl in appealing to the Government to accept this Amendment. This is not a Party Amendment. It was supported by members of all Parties in another place, it is, supported practically unanimously by organisations of teachers throughout the country, and it is supported by a large number, though not unanimously, of local authorities concerned in educational work. I am told, moreover, that in Lancashire increasingly parents hesitate about sending their children under fifteen to work in the factories.

I would remind your Lordships that this Amendment deals simply with children under fifteen, children of the age of fourteen, and there is one question, and one only, which I would ask the House to consider: Is it beneficial for children of this age, little boys and girls who have just left school, to be allowed to work in factories? Let me remind the Committee once again of the hours they would have to work. They would be allowed to work from eight in the morning until twelve. There would be an interval of one hour for lunch, and then they would work on till five o'clock; that is, if no overtime is allowed. They would have to go a considerable distance to get to their work, and a considerable distance to return home. This means, generally, that they would have to start for work shortly after seven and not return home much before six. With long hours of work like that, how can you expect these children either to attend some continuation school or to take part in the recreation which is so necessary for them?

I have read very carefully the replies given in another place by the Government to an Amendment like this, and I notice it is said that if we pass this Amendment it will mean that the children instead of going into factories will go into other kinds of employment. I wish we could stop all children under fifteen working long hours in employment. School is their right place. This will affect something like three-fourths of the children and will be a very great step forward. We are also told, sometimes, that employment in factories will be beneficial for the children and help them to prepare for more satisfactory work later on. That undoubtedly is true of some factories—I do not deny that for a moment—but I think it is often forgotten that in the great majority of factories the work of the children is purely mechanical work, that it is the same day after clay, and that after two or three years the children are dismissed and younger children take their places. They find that they have been engaged in blind-alley employment.

If it is true that passing this Amendment will dislocate industry, remember then that in speaking of this you are passing from the interest of the child to the interest of the industry. Then why not adopt the suggestion to make a postdated Amendment, so that it does not come into force for another three or four years? If you have it on the Statute Book it gives sufficient notice to the employers, and makes it plain that within three or four years time no child of under fifteen will be allowed to work these hours in factories. I regard this permission for children to work these long hours in factories as a great blot upon what otherwise is an extremely good Bill, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The proposal to raise to fifteen the age of admission of young persons into industry is, I know, a very controversial one, and it is one on which the Government have had to face the burden of criticism since this Bill was first introduced. Whatever sympathy we may have towards this proposal, and indeed I am not without sympathy myself, we must consider the existing law and observe what Parliament has already decreed shall be the law of the land upon this particular matter. Last year your Lordships, in agreement with another place, passed the Education Act of 1936, wherein provision was made for raising the school-leaving age to fifteen, subject to the right of local authorities to issue employment certificates under the age of fourteen to young persons entering beneficial employment.

In determining that beneficial employment the local authority must have regard to the prospective as well as to the immediate benefit of the child, and in particular to four points which appear in the Education Act. The first is the nature and probable duration of the employment, the wages to be paid, and the hours of work. The second is the opportunities to be afforded to the child for further education. The third, the time available to the child for recreation. The last, the value in relation to the future career of the child of any training or other advantages afforded by the employment. At the last General Election His Majesty's Government, in the manifesto which they issued to the electors, said this: The National Government have decided to legislate to raise the school-leaving age to fifteen, with a right of exemption between fourteen and fifteen for beneficial employment. I do not think the noble Earl can now expect the Government, and the Government supporters, to go back on the pledge given to the electors at the last General Election to introduce a Bill to carry out what they had stated they would do. I might mention at this stage that as far back as March, 1931, at the time of my election to the County Council, in my election address I undertook in no circumstances whatever to force people to keep their children at school until they were fifteen, unless they specifically desired to do so.

I have, I think, explained the basis of the law as it stands with regard to the Education Act of last year. Let me ask your Lordships to bear with me while I examine what would happen if this Amendment should be approved. Firstly, it would be a direct reversal of the policy which had been declared and approved by Parliament in 1936. Secondly, it would exclude all these young persons up to the age of fifteen from factory employment, but it would send them into occupations such as lead mining, coal mining, or shops, or other unregulated occupations, where no restrictions are in force at all. It would cause a glut of juveniles on the market, making for unemployment in far less favourable circumstances and conditions. I think it would be right that we should assume that in the future employers will be able to look less and less to juvenile labour. I think certainly that ten years hence the number of young persons available for industry will very greatly diminish—due, of course, to the general reduction that is going on in the birth-rate. I hope I have said sufficient to show that the Government are not prepared to reverse the policy which Parliament has approved. Furthermore, we have safeguarded the beginning of the life of these young people in industry by asking Parliament to give adequate powers to local authorities to deal with the entry of youth into industry. In those circumstances I think it would be quite improper for me either to accept this Amendment or to ask your Lordships to reverse the policy which you yourselves only last year declared to be the one you wish to follow. I hope that your Lordships will reject this Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The arguments used by the noble Earl would appeal to those who have supported every action of the Government during their tenure of office, but they would not appeal to those who have very definitely opposed provisions in certain measures that have been passed by Parliament. We did not regard the provision as to beneficial employment in the Education Act as being at all desirable, and its effect would be modified, in our opinion, in a direction that would benefit the children it this Amendment were accepted. The noble Earl has described how the Government have put the onus of decision on the shoulders of the local authorities. That is putting the local authorities in a very unfair and difficult situation. It is surely time for Parliament to face up to the necessity of giving an unmistakable lead to local authorities in this matter. It is simply a question of deciding whether or not we consider that eight hours a day for five days in the week, and four hours on the sixth day, constitute beneficial employment for children between fourteen and fifteen years of age. If we do not, then surely it is up to us to support this Amendment. If, on the other hand, we

LORD FARINGDON moved to leave out "woman or young." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment about which, of course, we feel strongly, and which the Government have consistently turned down on what must seem to a great many of us very inadequate grounds. Your Lordships will remember that the Government failed to ratify the Washington Convention on the ground that the forty-eight-hour week was already the practice in England. Although this is so in the greater number of trades, it is not so universally. It happens in quite a number of trades that sixty and even consider even that the matter is doubtful and that the decision should rest with the local authorities, then of course it would be reasonable to take the Government point of view. But, associating myself in this matter with the right reverend Prelate opposite, I urge that the time has come for Parliament to give a very definite lead. By doing so we should be acting in accordance with progressive public opinion in all quarters of this country. I am unable to withdraw this Amendment.

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS.
Mersey, V.	Arnold, L.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]
Samuel, V.	Clwyd, L.
	Faringdon, L.	Mamhead, L.
Winchester, L. Bp.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) [Teller.]	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
		Snell, L.
Addison, L.		Stanmore, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Iveagh, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Gainford, L.
Halifax, V. (L. President.)	Mar and Kellie, E.	Heneage, L.
	Mount Edgeumbe, E.	Holden, L.
De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Munster, E.	Howard of Glossop, L.
	Onslow, E.	Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
	Stanhope, E.	Melchett, L.
Argyll, D.	Wicklow, E.	Mottistone, L.
		Redesdale, L.
Salisbury, M.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Remnant, L.
Zetland, M.	Goschen, V.	Rennell, L.
		St. Levan, L.
Airlie, E.	Ask with, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Bessborough, E.	Denham, L.	Seaton, L.
Feversham, E.	Elton, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Iddesleigh, E.	Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)	Strickland, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

eighty hours a week are occasionally worked. One of the reasons His Majesty's Government have for not ratifying Conventions dealing with hours of work has been that it is a matter that we in England feel can better be arranged between the representatives of employers and employed. In point of fact in this country only about one-third of the working people are actually organised. Amongst workers so organised it is a fact that the forty-eight-hour week does obtain. In some industries considerably less is the rule. You will find that engineering, coal mining, and building have a forty-eight-hour week, while in iron and steel it is a forty-four-hour week.

This seems to reinforce my point. It seems to bring additional weight to bear in favour of this Amendment. This Factories Bill is not only for the benefit of the young and of women. It ought, I suggest, to deal equally with men. Unorganised men are just as worthy of your Lordships' notice and your Lordships' care as women and young persons. Therefore I hope that your Lordships, by amending this Bill as I suggest, will make it the law of the land that the maximum period that can be worked is forty-eight hours, not only for women and young persons but also for men.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 22, leave out ("woman or young").—(Lord Faringdon.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

As I understand the object of the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, it is one to include adult men in the provisions of this Bill and presumably to apply all the detailed restrictions contained in this and other clauses to men as well as to women and young persons. The Government believe that the question of wages and hours for adult men in industry should be considered together and dealt with as far as possible by voluntary agreements made between representative organisations. I doubt whether interference by legislation with the hours worked by adult men would really be to their interests. I read with interest the remarks made by the President of the General Federation of Trade Unions on July r at their annual meeting at Scarborough in which he said: There is in existence a school of thought which holds that the idea of collective agreements, negotiated directly between employers and trade unions, has had its day and that better results can be obtained by legislative procedure. That to my mind is a fatal illusion and threatens the end of trade unionism. Apart from the noble Lord's apparent wish to end trade unionism, I need only mention that there are innumerable cases in which the limitation of hours for adult men would really be quite impossible.

I mention only a few—chemical works, bleaching, dyeing, explosive works, iron founding, shipbuilding, breakdowns, and many other trades into which I need not enter at the moment. In all these trades it is necessary that the work which the men are doing should actually be finished before the end of their working day comes. If we are going to restrict them to forty-eight hours and to apply to them all the other restrictions contained in this Bill, it would be apparent that the man who is in the middle of bleaching or dyeing would have to stop at once. The consequence would be a serious loss to the industry and much material would be ruined and destroyed. I hope the noble Lord will see that it is not possible to include adult men in this Bill and that he will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD FARINGDON

I am afraid I must regard the noble Earl's reply as eminently unsatisfactory. I did not quite follow the reasons he produced for the need for longer hours in certain employments. I should have thought that the need for extending the hours would have been covered by overtime. Incidentally I should like to protest against his suggestion that my only object is the abolition of trade unionism. That seems a peculiar idea to attempt to attach to me and one that cannot by any reasonable twisting of my words be produced. On the contrary, I used the hours obtained by the trade unions for their members as evidence and support for the necessity of extending these benefits equally to those who did not belong to trade unions, leaving the trade unions to continue to blaze the trail for better working hours for their less fortunate brethren. However, this Amendment seems to be receiving scant attention from His Majesty's Government—by no means the attention which, in my opinion, the matter deserves. Therefore, not to take up too much of your Lordships' time, and with the permission of the Committee, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FARINGDON moved, in paragraph (a), to substitute "forty hours" for "forty-eight hours." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is very much at the heart of a great number of people of all Parties. It does seem very peculiar that at the moment when in so many countries all over the world a maximum of forty hours a week for all workmen is being commonly demanded, we in this country, in producing a new Factories Act, should be setting as a standard for women and young children, the weaker members of the community, a working week of forty-eight hours. That, I would suggest, is not by any means the end of the matter. These young persons particularly are of an age when most of your Lordships were still at school. You were working nothing like these hours. Perhaps you never have. But in any case it is not merely the forty-eight hours. If your Lordships will consider that in each working day an extra hour will be taken up with the mid-day meal and; in addition, that in the case of very many workers at least half an hour each way must be allowed for their journey to and from their work, your Lordships will find that these women and young children are out of their homes for practically sixty hours a week.

Put like that your Lordships will admit that the figure is pretty substantial. It is perfectly understandable that these young people on returning to their homes are in no mood to continue their education. They are naturally much too tired. We as a country spend very considerable sums on our public education. We have lately raised the school leaving age—not without exemptions, I am sorry to say—to fifteen, and I imagine it would be the wish of all educationists in this country that children after leaving school should continue their education. Indeed it would seem to me to be the reasonable, economical thing for all of us to wish. Having spent considerable sums on children's education it would be natural that we should wish that, by continuing it in their own spare time, they should get the fullest possible advantage. Working these hours it must be perfectly clear to your Lordships that practically none of these young persons can take advantage of such educational classes as may be available for them. Moreover, that is not the end of it. We have been hearing a great deal lately about physical fitness and physical training of the young. I ask, how many of your Lordships, after a day's work such as I have described and such as you are now preparing to inflict upon young persons, would really feel like having very much physical exercise? I suggest that the most active occupation that you would probably feel inclined to have would be attendance at the cinema, and then you might not stay throughout the programme.

I would point out that at this moment, when, as I said, you are condemning children to these long hours, other countries are adopting for all their workers a forty-hour week, and that without decrease of earnings. Incidentally it will be of some interest to your Lordships, though I imagine most of you ate aware of it, that at the International Labour Office Conference American textile manufacturers maintained that the adoption of the short week was not bad for their trade. On the contrary, in their own trades they have tried it and found it good. I expect also that most of your Lordships are aware, but in case you are not let me remind you, that according to the accident figures in factories the greatest number of accidents take place at the beginning of work and at the end—at the beginning before the mind is fully awake and at the end when the mind, overtired, does not keep the body from getting in the way of dangerous machinery. I have tried to outline already the hours of work which even under a forty-eight-hour arrangement will be worked, but your Lordships must not forget that to those must be added one hundred hours a year overtime.

Again let me repeat that his Majesty's Government refused to ratify the International Labour Convention on hours on the ground, again, that this was better arranged between organised workers and employers. But this Amendment is aimed at giving protection and shorter hours to the helpless and the least organised of all workers, and the workers who most need it—women and young persons. These people are comparatively little organised, and someone other than themselves—they probably have no representative of their own—must plead their cause. I therefore urge upon your Lordships the desirability of limiting their hours of work, and beg you, when considering this Amendment, to think of your own children and whether you would approve for them hours such as these. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 27, leave out ("forty-eight") and insert ("forty").—(Lord Faringdon.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Bill which we have been discussing at some length this afternoon provides for very substantial improvement in the condition of factory employment, and many of the clauses of this Bill require employers as a whole to reorganise their particular industry under the requirements contained and set out in these clauses. It will be remembered that it is at present legally permissible to employ persons for sixty hours a week in non-textile and fifty-five and a half hours a week in textile occupations, but we are now laying down that legal maximum hours of employment in all factories should not exceed forty-eight in any one week. In taking into account the proposed reduction to forty: hours, we must consider the fact that any reduction such as is contemplated would involve a tremendous change and a largely increased burden on industry. Any sudden reduction of this character would result in an immense dislocation of industry and a heavy loss of production. The International Labour Conference in 1935 adopted a forty-hour week. As the noble Lord has quite correctly pointed out, this was opposed by the British Government, one of the principal reasons for that opposition being that the Convention sought to establish the principle of a forty-hour week without setting up any effective safeguard against a reduction of wages as a consequence of the shortened hours.

I am not aware, as the noble Lord appears to be, that a great many countries in the world are working this forty-hour week. There are only two of which I have any certain knowledge. There is in operation a forty-hour week in France, and I would mention here that in Paris alone the cost of living since the War has gone up by 581 per cent. The other is New Zealand, which is a very small industrial country where there are only some 80,000 persons employed in industry. In the United States of America there was a National Recovery Act which set up a forty-hour week, but when this Act was

declared invalid by the Supreme Court of the United States, there was, I am informed, a rapid departure from that working week. In Italy collective agreements between the Joint Corporation of Fascist Employers and Workers resulted in a forty-hour week in certain industries, but there again that forty-hour week was subject to a reduction in wages. In Belgium there is a forty-hour week in operation, but only in the mining areas. I have no knowledge of any other country in the world where there is a forty-hour week actually in operation.

We must consider also the effect of any alteration in working hours upon the existing wages and that, as I have already pointed out, was very prevalent to the mind of the British Government in 1935 when they opposed the forty-hour week at Geneva. There is no justification for believing that a forty-eight-hour week is excessive from the point of view of the health of women and young persons, and I have no knowledge at all from my technical advisers that they have any reason to believe that a week of forty-eight hours is detrimental to the health of the classes of persons we are discussing. It would be folly for me to prophecy anything of the future. We are living in an ever-changing world and it may very well be that before many years have passed we shall have in operation in this country a forty-hour week in industry, but at the present moment the Government are not prepared to ask the House to accept the Amendment for the reasons which, I fear, I have explained at some considerable length.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 7.

CONTENTS.
Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Doverdale, L.
	Mar and Kellie, E.	Elton, L.
Halifax, V. (L. President.)	Munster, E.	Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.) [Teller.]
	Onslow, E.
De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Stanhope, E.	Heneage, L.
	Wicklow, E.	Howard of Glossop, L.
		Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Argyll, D.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Mamhead, L.
	Goschen, V.	Rea, L.
Zetland, M.	Mersey, V.	Redesdale, L.
	Samuel, V.	Remnant, L.
Airlie, E.	Swinton, V.	Rennell, L.
Bessborough, E.		Sandhurst, L.
Feversham, E.	Askwith, L.	Seaton, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Clwyd, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Iveagh, E.	Denham, L.	Stanmore, L.
		Templemore, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Addison, L.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Arnold, L.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]	Snell, L.
Faringdon, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD ADDISON moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out "and a half." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faring-don, and I hope the Government will give it very friendly consideration, because it is supported, in principle, by a very large body of evidence. It does not affect the maximum number of hours to be worked n a week. That has been already decided by the Division which has just taken place. What it does affect is the disposition of work within those hours. The paragraph provides that the maximum spell of work for women and young persons should be four and a half hours. We propose to make the maximum spell four hours. It would be a perfectly practicable proposition, I think, for any factory so to arrange the planning of work times that there shall be at least an interval at the end of four hours. That is really long enough.

With this in mind, I looked up the Report of the Committee on Fatigue which was appointed during the War, and I have here a copy. That Committee was appointed by me as Minister of Munitions. The Committee and the Committee on Industrial Fatigue, which succeeded it, have done very valuable work and presented a number of Reports. I believe that, without exception, they support the principle of this Amendment, that four hours as a continuous spell is enough, and that it should be practicable to arrange an interval of sufficiently reasonable time at the end of four hours. I do not want to burden the Committee with quotations, although there are some very apt quotations available. The Reports are obtainable by any noble Lord. I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment, which, as I say, does not alter the number of hours worked, but does call upon the managers of factories so to arrange the hours of work and the intervals that no continuous spell of work for women or young persons would be more than four hours.

Amendment moved— Page 59, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("and a half").—(Lord Addison.)

EARL DE LA WARR

As the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has said, this Amendment does not affect the actual number of hours to be worked, but merely the disposition of those hours, and as to when there shall be an interval. The noble Lord suggests that we should reduce the maximum from four and a half to four. I should have thought that in a very great number of cases that would be a desirable thing to do. The only question here is whether we should make that provision mandatory. Admitting that this provision does not affect the actual number of hours worked and therefore the amount of work to be obtained from a woman or young person, I should have thought that it would have been very much better to leave a question such as this to be negotiated within the industry itself, according to the convenience of the factory and of the workpeople themselves. After all, we must remember that more intervals may mean, for instance, being longer away from home and therefore longer away from bed. They may in certain cases mean meals having to be taken at inconvenient times. Therefore, while not in any way disagreeing in principle with the noble Lord, I would suggest to him that there would be greater flexibility in the Bill if we left the arrangement as it is.

LORD ADDISON

I would not trepass upon the time of the Committee again except to point out to the noble Earl, if I might for a moment, that the people affected here are not organised for the most part; they are not represented by any body of persons who could make a collective agreement for them. It is especially on that account that, in most of the cases where it has been suggested, it should be made mandatory. I hope the noble Earl will consider this. It is a perfectly practical suggestion; we did it extensively by mandate during the War in factories, and I am quite certain we could do it during peace.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71:

Reduction of weekly hours of work of young persons under sixteen.

71.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, as from the expiration of a period of one year after the commencement of this Act, the foregoing provision of this Part of this Act limiting the hours worked in any week, exclusive of intervals allowed for meals and rest, shall have elect, in the case of young persons who have not attained the age of sixteen, as if for the reference to forty-eight hours there were substituted a reference to forty-four hours.

(2) If representations are made to the Secretary of State with respect to any class or description of factory—

1. (a) that the industry carried on in that class or description of factory is, either generally or as respects a particular process, so dependent on the employment of such young persons and so organised that the carrying on of the industry would be seriously prejudiced unless the number of hours worked in a week by such young persons employed in that industry or in that process were permitted to exceed forty-four;
2. (b) that such increased hours would not be likely to be injurious to the health of the young persons; and
3. (c) that the work in which the young persons would be employed in that industry or process is particularly suitable for young persons, and that their employment would familiarise them with, and help to train them for employment in, processes in which older persons are employed in the industry, and be likely to lead to their permanent employment in the industry;

the Secretary of State may direct an inquiry to be held, and if, as a result of the inquiry, he is satisfied with respect to all the matters aforesaid, he may make regulations increasing the total hours, exclusive of intervals allowed for meals and rest, that may be worked by such young persons in any week in that class or description of factory, or, as the case may be, in a particular process carried on therein, to such figure, not exceeding forty-eight, as may be specified in the regulations.

Paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to this Act shall apply, with such adaptations as may be prescribed, to any inquiry held under this subsection.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER moved, in subsection (r), to leave out "forty-four hours" and insert "forty hours." The right reverend Prelate said: I hope the Government will accept the very modest Amendment which I now move. So far, the only Amendments they have accepted at all wholeheartedly have been those moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie; so I hope that this Amendment, which is modest compared with many of the Amendments which have already been moved, will find favour in the sight of members of the Government. It affects only boys and girls under the age of sixteen, and it only proposes to reduce their hours from forty-four to forty. Let me remind the Committee what the position is. The present law allows these young people to work from fifty-five to sixty hours a week, a disgracefully long time. The Bill in its original form reduced that time to forty-eight hours, and in Committee in another place the figure was reduced to forty-four hours with exemptions to forty-eight. Now we ask that the statutory time should be forty hours instead of forty-four hours.

This would mean a considerable difference to these young persons. It would mean in some cases that on Saturday they would have a whole holiday instead of a half-holiday, or it might mean that in the middle of the week they would have a half-holiday where at present they have no holiday at all. Quite a number of the firms of the "model employers," as I might call them, already work forty hours, and in one district at any rate—Rugby—where there is continued education, the arrangement is that these young persons work for forty hours in the week and also have, I think it is, six and a half hours for continued education. If we are told that this modest proposal would, if carried out, dislocate industry, I should like to make a suggestion which I made rather earlier—namely, that this provision should be post-dated; that if necessary it should come into force rather later on. I should like it to come into force at once, of course, but rather than see it rejected entirely I should like to see hope held out that it might come into force, say, in two or three years time. What I am so afraid of is that, while general sympathy is often expressed with resolutions of this kind, unless that sympathy finds its place in the Statute Book years and years may pass before anything is done. Remember, it is over thirty years since we had the last Factories Bill and since these hours of labour which are now worked were arranged. I am afraid that, unless some Amendment such as this is passed, a long period may elapse before anything is done in this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 19, leave out ("forty-four") and insert ("forty").—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD ASKWITH

This is one of the most important and at the same time most practical Amendments that have been moved to this Bill. I agree with the right reverend Prelate. He has had enormous experience in Southwark and other places of the work of these young people. Anyone who has studied the matter and knows anything at all about it knows that the hours of work which are laid down at present are too long and that the young persons have no chance of success in keeping either their bodies fit or their minds clear. We are now putting on in all our schools continued new curricula, with additions to the things that a child is pressed to learn and which the teachers are continually told that they must press upon the child. How, if the child has no time at all and has to be engaged in a factory and continue this work for so many hours, is he to be fit to take in with his brain what comes to him from these attempts at further teaching? Then, again, the Government are now—and I am very glad of it—going to improve the physical training of the country. The bodies of the children are very important. That the child should be tired out before doing these games, that he should not have time to do them properly or have holiday enough to engage in them, defeats the policy of the Government. We have been talking of this for years. There has been sympathy enough; let us do something practicable; let us vote for this Amendment and try to get these hours reduced to a reasonable period for these young persons under sixteen.

LORD ELTON

I think that the attitude to this Amendment of the noble Lords with whom I am associated in the National Labour Group will be to a large extent dictated by the terms in which the noble Earl finds himself able to reply. We are all quite clear that we think that forty hours is more than sufficient for a young person to work, and we are all quite clear that this is not a mere theoretical, experimental limit of hours. What the right reverend Prelate has just said about Rugby makes that clear. In that municipal area, I understand, not only the young persons employed by private firms, but also the young persons employed by the municipal authority, all work only up to this limit. All over the country there are select, enlightened employers who themselves impose that limit. There- fore it is not an experiment. The only question seems to us to be how we can most quickly bring about the state of affairs in which all over the country young people should be working only forty hours a week. Here it seems that the question of exemptions is the first we should seriously consider. It has been suggested—I do not know and I am not in a position to know fully with what force—that if we now write in forty hours, exemptions will be much more readily accorded than if we enact forty-four hours. It is argued that if we enact forty-four hours, a very good case will have to be made out by the employer for exemption. I have often seen it stated that actually in the immediate future the aggregate of hours worked by young persons will be larger if we enact forty hours at this moment than if we enact forty-four. Even so, I personally, and I believe the noble Lords associated with me, would be prepared to take that risk and would rather write in forty and get forty on the Statute Book, unless the noble Earl in his reply is able to make it quite clear that we are not now reaching another halting-place for thirty years.

I think there would be some case for enacting forty-four hours if it were understood that this were for a limited period. It might be easier to get employers to work forty hours in four or five years time if we started them at forty-four hours now. If the noble Earl is able to say that His Majesty's Government envisage that this is only a temporary resting point; if better still, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to accept, on the Report stage perhaps, a clause definitely enacting that within five years, as the right reverend Prelate suggested, instead of forty-four hours with exemption to forty-eight we shall have forty hours with exemptions to forty-four, then it would certainly make a very great difference to the attitude of noble Lords with whom I am associated. I very much hope, therefore, that if he cannot accept the specific clause the noble Earl will be prepared to say that the Government are looking forward in the near future to a figure of forty hours.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I have already given our reasons for desiring a reduction of the hours for children, and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating them, but will merely say that we on these Benches are wholehearted in support of the Amendment standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate opposite and of the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches and my own name.

LORD SANDHURST

I would just like to say a word on this point, if I may. It strikes me that we are rather leading ourselves astray. Under the Education Act, as has been pointed out, children are going to be kept at school until they reach the age of fifteen. Under this clause children are only to be affected up to the age of sixteen. That is a matter of one year. That one year is a most important time from the point of view of the child, and from the point of view of the factory. It is no good our saying that the difference between forty-four hours a week and forty hours is only four hours, and means nothing to the factory. That is not so. What we want is to get the young person into the factory and into a team where he is going to learn work which is going to support him through life, and if we are going to do that it is quite obvious that he must work, so far as possible, the time of the team. If you are going to have a forty-eight-hour week for your adult workers, and only a forty-hour week for your juvenile workers, you are breaking your adult workers' time by a whole day. If you cut it by only four hours the factory has only got to reorganise the Saturday morning, because it is only a four-hour cut. I suggest to your Lordships that the difference is a very serious one.

What it is going to mean is this: if you have to cut out a whole day's work of your juvenile employees you will not employ juvenile employees at all, because it will not pay. It will cost you more in the long run than the saving of work. This has an immediate result. Your children of fifteen years and under sixteen, instead of going into a profitable employment that is starting their training in life, will either have no employment at all or be put into a dead-end, where their training is of no good to them or anybody else. To my mind that is the whole crux of this clause: whether we are going to drive our fifteen to sixteen years children out of employment which is, from their point of view, productive, and put them into dead-ends. That is really a very serious matter, and one that does demand our closest possible attention. I perhaps realise it more than most people, because I am in a trade where we regularly take lads on as soon as they leave school, start them, and keep them going throughout life as far as we possibly can.

It has to be realised as well that when they start they do not start on really hard work. They are employed for reasonably long hours, but their employment is not heavy manual labour. We do not strain them, and as far as possible we give them time off. Every single one during the summer time, for instance, gets an hour off every other day, and gets time to play cricket in the evening every other day. I believe every employer can do something of that kind, although he cannot absorb that extra four hours. I ask your Lordships to consider very carefully whether in the interests of young persons themselves you can allow this clause to be amended.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

In dealing with this Amendment I had hoped to have the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, before I got up to reply.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

If the noble Earl wishes it I will speak now.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Oh, no. It is quite convenient. When this clause comes into operation juveniles under sixteen will be employed in the future for a forty-four-hour week, subject to the right of certain exemptions which I shall have to deal with in the next Amendment. In 1924 the Labour Government of that date introduced a Factories Bill, and in the years later subsequent Bills were also introduced, all of which proposed forty-eight hours as the maximum for all young persons. When this Bill was introduced it proposed precisely the same maximum, but it was evident from the discussions which took place in Standing Committee in another place that there appeared to be a general desire that the hours of these young persons should be lower than what was contained in the Bill. Accordingly, the Home Secretary at that time had discussions with representatives of the employers' associations and with the trade unions, and after considering their reports he introduced a clause practically the same as that which is now in the Bill. Both employers' representative and the spokesmen of organised labour did not minimise the fact that a very great deal of adjust-merit would have to take place in every factory where this new proposal would affect the workers employed therein.

In the light of discussions and inquiries which took place it was hoped on the one hand to provide such reductions as would be beneficial to young persons, and on the other hand to refrain from upsetting industry more than was absolutely necessary, having particular regard to the extent to which young persons are at present employed on team work. That is a very important point. The work of men, women, children and young persons is in a very large proportion of cases not independent. Any sudden reduction of working hours is not nearly so simple as it appears to be. The proposal which was put forward by the Home Secretary for this reduction was not so much on the ground of protection of health, for we have no evidence whatever to show that a maximum of forty-eight hours per week would be really injurious to the health of young persons, but merely on the ground of providing greater opportunities of education and physical recreation. One of the main reasons for submitting the figure of forty-four hours was that manufacturers would be able to comply with this limit of hours by giving juveniles an extra half-day's holiday each week, and in a number of cases the employers stated that this was the only way that they could make the adjustment without a serious disturbance of work throughout the whole factory. If the figure of forty now proposed were accepted we should be bound to accept a larger number of applications for exemption, and, as I have said, I shall deal with that more fully when we come to the next Amendment.

Another important point, and one which I make no apology for mentioning again, is that under the existing law it is perfectly legal for these young persons to be worked sixty or fifty-five hours a week. In this clause we are bringing that down to a forty-four hour week, and we are absolutely prohibiting the overtime employment of young persons. From the experience that I have gained in this matter I should be the first to say that when the industry has adapted itself to the forty-four-hour week, and we can see whether or not that has made difficulties, we shall be in a far better position to judge whether or not the forty-hour week could then be set up for young persons under fifteen. I would not for one moment say that it is beyond the range of possibility; indeed, I think that before many years are out the forty-hour week may very likely be the maximum for young persons. The Government have two duties to perform: first, to safeguard the young lives of our future citizens; and, secondly, to pass legislation which will benefit them and every other class of persons, but at the same time will do nothing that is likely to hamper or endanger a prospering British industry. I hope that your Lordships will think twice about this Amendment and realise that it is not possible for the Government in the present circumstances to accept it. We have gone a long way to meet criticisms, and I hope your Lordships will accept the suggestion which I made just now that the future may have great things in store for us, and there will undoubtedly be an opportunity to see whether a forty-hour week is practicable when we know how the present legal limit of forty-four hours works in industry.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I am sorry the Government have taken the course which has just been declared, but it was not unexpected in view of what happened in another place, and it was for that reason that I withheld any contribution to this debate until after the noble Earl had spoken, for I was pretty sure that he would have put cogently any arguments which he could discover for the clause as it stands. His arguments leave me unmoved. He says there is teamwork, and the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who said that therefore the juveniles must work the same hours as adults. But if that were so there could never have been any differentiation—

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I never said that because there was team work they should work the same hours as the adults.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Then I am afraid I failed to gather the noble Earl's meaning.

LORD SANDHURST

I expressly said that the alteration of Saturday would not affect matters.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

The noble Lord says they must work the same hours other than Saturdays in order that the team should be able to work as a whole. That is my point. What is to happen on Saturdays? What becomes of the team? What becomes of all the arguments that we have heard? According to this, the Saturday would be a dies non for the whole team, and the work of the factory would be completely disorganised. What applies to the Saturday must apply also to the other days of the week. And therefore what I was saying holds good, that the noble Lord's contention is that because people work in teams, the juveniles being part of the team, the hours of work of the juveniles must be the same as that of the adults. If that argument is good throughout the whole history of our factory legislation there ought to have been no differentiation for young persons. But never has that argument been accepted, and for generations there have been separate hours fixed for young persons from those fixed for adults. Therefore, it appears to me that that argument must be dismissed. And indeed the whole argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is on a par with that which has been used throughout the history of factory legislation. Whenever it is proposed to make any alteration—if it were a question of reducing hours from twelve to eleven, or eleven to ten, or of raising the age of employment from eight to nine, or ten to eleven, or thirteen to fourteen—at each stage Parliament has been told, "Oh, if you do this, these people whom you wish to benefit will really suffer, because they will lose their employment altogether." And never has it been found that that argument has been justified by the facts.

With respect to the point that has been made that if this Amendment were accepted there would be more exemptions under the latter part of this clause, and that therefore a great number of children would be allowed to work forty-eight hours instead of the forty-four which they would work if this Amendment is rejected, the answer to that is that of course the latter part of the clause would have to be modified to fit the alteration made in the first part, and if the norm is to be forty hours, and exemptions are to be allowed, the exemptions would be up to forty-four. Then those who would be working forty-four hours would certainly be less numerous than those who would be working forty-four hours under the clause as it stands, because under the clause as it stands they would all be working forty-four; and in the latter case, if the Amendment were accepted and the latter part of the clause were also modified to make forty-four the limit for exemptions instead of forty-eight, there would be fewer people working forty-four hours than under the Bill as it stands. So all of those arguments may, I think, be put aside.

Let me then come back to the actual clause itself, and what it really proposes to do. Let noble Lords remember what class of people it is that we are dealing with. Children of the age of fourteen and fifteen—those are the only ones concerned. And what are the hours which they may be called upon compulsorily to work in those circumstances? View it not from the point of view of a weekly total, but the daily hours of labour. If a five-and-a-half day week is worked these children will on Saturdays be working four hours, on the other days they will be working eight hours. But that excludes meal times. You must add an hour as a rule for the meal intervals, so they will be in the factory for nine hours, that is to say, from seven in the morning till four in the afternoon, or else from eight in the morning until five in the afternoon; but if the factory works a five-day week, as many factories do now, and they have to work forty-four hours in the five days, then if they come at seven in the morning they will get away at a quarter to five in the evening and if they start at eight in the morning they get away at a quarter to six. If the factory has special exemption under the latter part of the clause, four hours more would be added to all that. They would be working on for another three-quarters of an hour daily. Accordingly they would be in the factory until half-past five if they started at seven in the morning, and they would be working until half-past six if they started at eight, if they were working a five-day week.

In these circumstances, what chance is there for physical recreation and education? These are the hours they have to be in the factory, but they have to get to the factory and they have to get home from the factory, often taking a considerable time. These are children fourteen or fifteen years old. We are all anxious that our nation should be well educated, and we are all anxious, if they have to go to work owing to the necessities of the household, that they should have facilities for education and recreation in the evening. What prospect is there of that with such spells as these? This House has been most interested in the Bill for physical training and recreation. We rejoice that the Government should take up this matter. We agree that it is essential to the welfare of the whole nation that there should be these opportunities on which they rightly lay stress. This very day we passed, without discussion and with unanimous approval, the Third Reading of the Physical Training and Recreation Bill, for which the Government rightly take credit. How does that policy square with the hours I have just mentioned for children of fourteen and fifteen?

I would urge that on this occasion this House should take an independent line, and I trust that this Amendment recommended by the noble Lord opposite and by the right reverend Prelate, speaking entirely without Party prepossessions, although presumably supporters of the Government in the main, will be accepted. I would add that the Association of Municipal Corporations, a very responsible body, representing a great body of opinion in this country and consisting entirely of experienced administrators, have mentioned this particular Amendment as one which they would support and one which they trust Parliament will enact. I trust, therefore, that the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate will receive the sanction of your Lordships.

EARL DE LA WARR

My noble friend Lord Munster has already put most of the considerations which have been in the mind of the Government in connection with this Amendment, but there are just one or two points which have, perhaps, been dealt with a little over-summarily by some of your Lordships speaking in favour of the Amendment. The noble Viscount who has just sat down has told us that the argument regarding team work can be dismissed entirely because, he says, with admirable logic, if team work can be dispensed with on a Saturday morning or on some half-holiday, why cannot it be dispensed with throughout the week? It is one thing to be logical and it is sometimes another thing to be practical. I suggest to your Lordships that if you are running a factory or a large concern of that character it may well be possible, though perhaps inconvenient, to arrange the work on what I might call a whole half-holiday or the whole of a Saturday morning, whereas it is going to be extremely difficult from the point of view of team work to have one half-hour or one hour each day of the week knocked off. Therefore I suggest that that argument with regard to team work cannot be completely dismissed. One of the reasons why this particular period of forty-four hours was chosen was that it does work in conveniently with our desire that the young person should have an extra half-holiday, and that that extra half-holiday is likely to be of far more use to the child than if it were distributed throughout the week.

It does strike me also that the noble Viscount has rather discounted the very large reduction that is, in fact, taking place under this Bill. The right reverend Prelate who moved this Amendment told us there were now young persons working between fifty-five and sixty hours a week, and he told us that the number of hours in the first edition of the Bill was reduced to forty-eight. It is now reduced to forty-four, with a maximum of forty-eight in special cases. That is a very considerable reduction. Very few of us in your Lordships' House would for a moment contend that that reduction is as large as we ultimately hope it will be. But we surely discount the value of something else, and that is the value of the undoubted agreement which we have with employers on this point. That is not only of value at the present moment for the working of this particular provision of forty-four hours, but it does seem to me to be of real value for the future progress we want to make. There is no doubt that if employers work this provision of forty-four hours, and find that the reduction that has to be made as the result of that provision works with considerably less inconvenience than is anticipated, then it is going to be so much easier to get the further reduction to forty hours at a later stage.

Then, also, during the debate the point about fewer exemptions has been rather dismissed by certain speakers. Are we quite right to do that? With the acceptance of this provision by employers, there is no doubt we shall get the minimum of applications for exemptions. But once we get non-acceptance of the number of hours by employers, they are going to apply for exemption, and once they have applied for exemptions they will not stop at applying merely for forty-four hours, but will go on to forty-eight hours. The noble Viscount says we should go further and enact an Amendment that is not at present before your Lordships, and reduce the number of overtime hours to four. Surely we come back to this that you are imposing on industry a number of hours that are utterly and totally unacceptable and which we cannot get through Parliament by agreement. I myself, if I might be allowed to speak personally, would be inclined to agree with the noble Lord, and I think most of your Lordships would also probably agree, that that conflict was possibly worth while if we were contending here that the hours that are proposed in this Bill were the last word in factory legislation with regard to this subject. Noble Lords will recall that my right honourable friend in another place made it very clear indeed in his speech, I think on Third Reading, that he did not regard this Bill as the last word. I think he went even further than that, and implied that he thought we might well find other legislation dealing with such subjects as this at an earlier stage than some people possibly imagined. Therefore, as this is not the last word, I suggest that it is of real value to retain the amount of agreement we have been able to gain in enacting this provision, which is a very real advance on anything we have had in the past.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I want to say only one word. I have been listening to the noble Earl with great attention, and I hoped very much that he would see his way to accept the Amendment, which seems to me eminently reasonable and which has been moved not primarily by anybody on these Benches, which would naturally prejudice it in the eyes of the Government. The name of my noble friend Lord Listowel is sandwiched between the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. Therefore the Amendment has received support from other quarters of the House. I listened very attentively to the noble Earl's speech, and I do not think he disposed at all of the arguments brought for- ward by the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches. I do not think that he really disposed of the arguments on the suggestion that any Amendment will break up the idea of team work in the factories. At any rate I do not feel convinced by his arguments. I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that for the second time to-day we are having Amendments rejected on grounds based on the hope of the Government. Much as we admire noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, we really cannot pin all our confidence in the fact of that hope to legislate soon in the direction we wish. Therefore, I trust those responsible for this Amendment will press it to a Division. I think the Government have not really met the points that have been so very well raised and they are certainly disappointing those who felt that in this Bill there would be, anyhow for young people, a distinct and progressive improvement.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I rather think the noble Lord himself when he was Leader of this House said that never did his Party intend to oppose the will of the country as expressed in another place, and this Amendment has been twice rejected in another place. Therefore I do not understand the noble Lord's attitude.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

If I might correct the noble Viscount, I have never had the honour of being Leader of this House, but I have been Leader of the Opposition and on one occasion—and I think my noble friends still adhere to the practice—I stated that any Bill that had received a Second Reading in the House of Commons should not be rejected by your Lordships' House on Second Reading, but that does not refer to Amendments in Committee.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

I listened with great disappointment to the replies made by the Government spokesmen to this Amendment. I am not in the least convinced by the arguments they have put forward. The difficulty about this disclocation of team work in industry surely might have been met by saying that this Amendment, if it is passed, shall not be effective for another two or three years. That would have given quite sufficient time for any industry to reorganise itself. The noble Lord has told us that if this passes there may be a number of additional requests for exemption. Well, no doubt there will be such, but the Secretary of State has full power to refuse them. We have been told again and again that these exemptions are drawn up most carefully and that the whole thing is guarded as carefully as can be; and the safeguards will still remain. The real issue is whether you are prepared to vote for the Amendment, which means that children at the age of fourteen and fifteen shall

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with overtime for children of fourteen. Let me point out that this subsection conflicts with the principle adopted by the Government that there shall be no overtime for children between fourteen and sixteen. The Bill allows overtime for adult workers and young persons between sixteen and eighteen, but it does not allow overtime for children below the age of sixteen. Yet this subsection does, in an underhand way, admit the very principle of overtime which the Government have explicitly rejected. When this clause dealing with the hours of work for young persons was presented in another place, it allowed a forty-eight-hour week for children below sixteen, as well as for boys and girls in the older categories.

work for forty hours a week instead of forty-four, and I would ask members of the House to think what they themselves would feel about their own boys and girls if at the age of fourteen and fifteen they had to work these long hours in factories.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.
Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Bessborough, E.	Swinton, V.
	Feversham, E.
Halifax, V. (L. President.)	Iddesleigh, E,	Denham, L.
	Iveagh, E.	Doverdale, L.
De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Eltisley, L.
	Mar and Kellie, E.	Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)
	Munster, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Argyll, D.	Onslow, E.	Heneage, L.
	Stanhope, E.	Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Wicklow, E.	Remnant, L.
Zetland, M.		Rennell, L,
	Bertie of Thame, V.	Sandhurst, L.
Airlie, E.	Goscben, V.	Seaton, L.
		Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Mersey, V. [Teller.]	Askwith, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Samuel, V.	Clwyd, L.	Mamhead, L.
	Elton, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Winchester, L. Bp.	Faringdon, L.	Rea, L.
	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) [Teller.]	Redesdale, L.
Addison, L.		Snell, L.
Arnold, L.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Thanks to the very general criticism that the Government received in another place, the forty-eight-hour week was reduced to a forty-four-hour week for those young people who had not attained the age of sixteen. This principle that has been accepted apparently by the Government, and embodied in this clause, is really rejected by the introduction of subsection (2).

What the Government gave with one hand they are taking away with the other, because this subsection allows the Home Secretary, if he is impressed by a case that any employer cares to bring to him, to set an inquiry on foot and, as a result of that inquiry, to permit these young people to work not forty-four hours but forty-eight hours. That is to say, as the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches pointed out, we get back in certain cases to the forty-four-hour week and the long period of work from seven o'clock in the morning till about a quarter to five in the afternoon. We do not consider that there should be any exemption on the ground that industry vitally requires young persons, or that anything should be allowed to over-ride the general principle that children of this age shall only work forty-four hours in the week. That is why this Amendment aims at the complete deletion of the subsection, and if your Lordships accept the Amendment forty-four hours will be the general working time of all children.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 20, leave out subsection (2). —(The Earl of Listowel.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

In considering this Amendment, let me first point out the conditions which an industry will have to fulfil in order to obtain exemption under the clause as it stands. The conditions have been drawn in extremely severe terms. The industry has to show, firstly, that it is so dependent on the employment of young persons under the age of sixteen, and so organised, that the industry would be seriously prejudiced unless the number of hours worked were allowed to exceed forty-four. Secondly, it has to be shown that the general increase in the number of hours will not be likely to be injurious to the health of the young persons employed. Thirdly, it must be established that the work in which the young persons are to be employed is particularly suitable for them, that it will familiarise them with, and train them for, employment in the processes in which older people are employed in the industry, and that it will be likely to lead to their permanent employment in their particular industry. It will indeed be the case that the Secretary of State can make regulations allowing this privilege, but he has to direct a public inquiry to be held, and it might interest your Lordships to observe the procedure that has to be adopted in these circumstances. It will be found in the Second Schedule of the Bill. As we are making such a large reduction from sixty hours to forty-four hours, I think that we might give some privilege such as this which might conceivably be useful to various industries. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

All I can say in reply is that the very conditions laid down in subsection (2) and mentioned by the noble Earl opposite are conditions which those of us who have voted against the employment of children of fourteen in industry regard as being altogether undesirable for children of that age. Therefore we use exactly the same arguments in support of this Amendment as in support of the previous Amendment. I shall not press the Amendment, although I am as unsatisfied as I was before by the arguments of the noble Earl about the desirability of the industrial employment of children of fourteen. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment, in my name, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 12, leave out ("is pending or proceeding") and insert ("has been directed but has not been held").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The following Amendment is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 15, after ("factory") insert ("or any process").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Clause 73:

Overtime employment of women and young persons over sixteen.

(6) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that work in any class or description of factory is subject to seasonal or other special pressure, he may by regulations as respects that class or description of factory—

(b) increase the hours of overtime employment allow ed for a factory under this section in a calendar year to an aggregate not exceeding one hunched and fifty hours, subject to the condition that young persons shall not be employed during more than one hundred of the hours of overtime employment allowed for the factory.

LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (6) (b), to leave out "one hundred and fifty" and insert "ninety." The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to your Lordships, and you have heard me patiently, several times to-day on the subject of hours of work. It seems to me that in this question of overtime a dangerous loophole is left. I ask your Lordships and the Government to give serious consideration to this Amendment. Your Lordships will see that one hundred and fifty hours of overtime per annum are to be allowed. That will make practically half an hour per working day and will change very considerably the face of the other limitations of hours. I do not wish to weary your Lordships, but that is the point, and I hope it may receive consideration from the Government.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 9, leave out ("one hundred and fifty") and insert ("ninety").—(Lord Faringdon.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am not quite clear about the purpose of this Amendment. In the Bill as it stands now the normal provision is for one hundred hours of overtime for women, subject to fifty hours' increase in very special circumstances of the particular industry. The noble Lord proposes now that for one hundred and fifty you read ninety, which means that you would actually reduce the number of hours to be worked by women in normal circumstances by ten hours under exceptional circumstances when extra work is required. Therefore the Amendment as it reads at the present moment does not, I am afraid, begin to make sense. I do not know what the noble Lord really wants to do, but I am afraid that in the circumstances we cannot possibly accept the Amendment.

LORD FARINGDON

I am sorry; I am afraid the Amendment has been misdrafted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Clause 74 agreed to.

Clause 75:

Restriction of employment inside and outside factory on same day.

75.—(1) A woman or young person shall not, except during the period of employment, be employed outside the factory, in the business of the factory or in any other business carried on by the occupier, on any day during which the woman or young person is employed in the factory.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line so, leave out ("except during the period of employment") and insert ("during any interval allowed to that woman or young person for a meal or rest, or any time not included in the period of employment fixed by a notice under this Part of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that a woman or young person who has attained the age of sixteen may be so employed in a shop outside the period of employment, but any such employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act (including the provisions relating to overtime employment) as employment in the factory. The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment with a view to meeting an anomaly which arises in respect of persons employed partly in a factory and partly in a shop. I do not think there is any necessity to weary your Lordships with a long and technical explanation, and I formally beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 15, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76 [Prohibition of use of rooms during intervals]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 24, after ("allowed") insert ("to that woman or young person").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 77 agreed to.

Clause 78:

Annual Holidays.

78.—(1) Subject to the special exceptions allowed under this Part of this Act, the occupier of a factory shall allow in each year to every woman and young person employed in the factory the following whole holidays:—

In England— the whole of Christmas Day, Good Friday, and every bank holiday, unless the occupier throughout not less than three weeks before any one of those days posts in the factory a notice that he intends to substitute for that day some other weekday specified in the notice as a whole holiday:

LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), after "year," to insert "without loss of pay." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Listowel I move this Amendment, which raises the question of holidays with pay on a maximum of four specified bank holidays every year. Most good employers in many classes of employment have for years past never dreamt of deducting wages for these days. It is about time we emphasised the principle that people are entitled to holidays with pay on Bank Holidays. I do not want to quote other nations; we rather pride ourselves that we set our own precedents, though I am afraid that our showing in that matter at Geneva during late years has not been very creditable!This is a modest Amendment; it is as modest a form as could possibly be devised to insinuate into our industrial system the very righteous principle that there should be a few days in the year on which a person can have a holiday with pay. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 36, after ("year") insert ("without loss of pay").—(Lord Addison.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This Amendment raises the whole question of holidays with pay, and for the consideration of that matter His Majesty's Government have set up a Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is Chairman and of which Mr. Ernest Bevin and a number of other very eminent gentlemen are members. I do not think noble Lords would expect us to anticipate the Report of this Committee.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), at the end of the paragraph referring to England, to insert "and to every woman and young person who has been in the same employment for twelve months or longer an annual holiday of not less than eight clear consecutive days". The noble Earl said: This, again, is an Amendment dealing with holidays with pay. The important principle embodied in this Amendment is that the present provision for holidays is insufficient for two reasons. It is not a sufficiently long period, because the Bank Holidays and the religious festivals which are at present allowed to working-class people as whole holidays do not cover a sufficiently long span of time. Secondly, these holidays are not consecutive. The importance of a consecutive holiday is perfectly obvious. If a working man wants to go to the country or the sea to get a change of air and of surroundings and an opportunity to recover his fitness after the fatigue of long months in a factory, he must be able to spend at least a week, in our view, on a complete and uninterrupted holiday. That is why we ask for a week's annual holiday in addition to the holidays that are at present provided at different times in the year.

I realise, as the noble Earl has pointed out, that a Committee is giving consideration to this very question. Nobody would wish to anticipate the findings of such a Committee; but, judging from the record of the Government in regard to other Committees, it is difficult to feel a high degree of confidence that the findings of such a Committee will be embodied in our statute law. We believe it is high time that this country adopted the practice of other countries and of the best employers here with regard to holidays of employees. That is a conclusion that we have reached quite independently of any investigations that may be going on at the present moment, and that is the reason for this Amendment. At the same time, I should like to express the extremely ardent hope that the Government will give their serious consideration to the recommendations of this Committee, which will no doubt consider the fact that a Private Member's Bill according an annual holiday with pay was recently given a Second Reading in another place. I hope that the Government will consider those recommendations seriously and in a very friendly spirit. and that, if they find that the holiday is advocated, such a step may be taken as soon as possible by means of the appropriate legislation.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 4, at end insert ("and to every woman and young person who has been in the same employment for twelve months or longer an annual holiday of not less than eight clear consecutive days").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I can only give the same reply as I gave previously. I would only add that I think the air of superiority adopted by the noble Earl, who is a supporter of a Party which introduced a Factory Bill proposing a forty-eight-hour week instead of a forty-four-hour week, is just a little bit misplaced.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 78 agreed to.

Clauses 79 and 80 agreed to.

Clause 81 [Exceptions as to male young persons employed in shifts]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

These are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 68, line 29, after ("such") insert ("young")

Page 68, line 31, after ("such") insert ("young").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 82 and 83 agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 83, to insert the following new clause:

Exception as to hour at which period of employment of young persons under 16 ends.

". The period of employment for young persons who have not attained the age of sixteen may end at an hour later than six o'clock in the evening but not later than seven o'clock in the evening in any factory where—

1. (a) the total hours worked by those young persons do not exceed forty-four in any week:
2. (b) those young persons are, on at least one weekday in addition to Saturday, not employed after the interval for the midday meal, or are, on at least one weekday, not employed before that interval; and
3. (c) and such other conditions as may be prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of State are complied with."

The noble Earl said: This provision is simply in order to make it easier on certain occasions to give a half-holiday. It is a provision which applies only to those factories accepting a forty-four-hour week.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 83 insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 84 to 87 agreed to:

Clause 88 [Exception as to male young persons employed Or repairing work]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 28, after ("machinery") insert ("or plant").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 89 to 91 agreed to.

Clause 92 [Exception as to laundries]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 14, leave out ("extension") and insert ("exception").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.

VISCOUNT MERSEY moved, after Clause 92, to insert the following new clause:

Exception as to manufacture of bread or flour confectionery.

"—(1) For the purpose of meeting without overtime employment pressure of work recurring on particular days of the week the total hours worked in a day by women in the manufacture of bread or flour confectionery (including meat and fruit pies) or sausages may on two days other than Saturday in any week extend to ten hours and the period of employment on those days may extend to twelve hours and may begin at any time not earlier than six o'clock in the morning and end at any time not later than nine o'clock in the evening:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the total hours worked in a week.

(2) The Secretary of State may, as regards factories of which the occupiers avail themselves of this exception, by regulations make such modifications in the provisions of this Part of the Act which require that the period of employment and intervals allowed for meals and rest shall be the same for all women and young persons, and that no women or young persons shall be employed during any such interval, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is to meet the need of factories engaged in the production of perishable foodstuffs such as bread, flour confectionery and flour products (meat and fruit pies, etc.) and sausages. Factories of this kind have days of specially heavy demand towards the end of the week, when the number of orders is very greatly in excess of those received on other days owing to the fact that the masses then buy heavily for week-end consumption. Indeed, in these factories often as much as 70 per cent. of the week's production is required to be manufactured on one or two days towards the end of the week. Conversely there are at the beginning of the week slack clays, but because of the perishable nature of these foodstuffs, it is not possible to manufacture them for stock. There is con- sequently a real need for the elasticity of hours for which the Amendment provides. No extension of the forty-eight-hour week is sought under the new clause, and the extra hour worked on any one day can, therefore, and will, be compensated for by shorter hours on another. Generally speaking no overtime, that is to say time in excess of the forty-eight hours per week, is required in a normal week, and overtime will generally only be required in the periods preceding the main holiday periods; that is, Christmas, Easter, etc. The overtime provisions in the Bill do not deal with the situation which arises every week in the year, and this clause is intended to give the necessary elasticity in working, without exceeding the limit of forty-eight hours. It is limited to women and does not apply to young persons. A similar clause for laundries is already in the Bill.

Amendment moved— After Clause 92, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Mersey.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 93 [Exceptions as to the preserving of fish, fruit and vegetables]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 32, after ("preserving") insert ("canning").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 93 as amended, agreed to.

Clause 94 [Exceptions as to factories where milk is treated]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My first Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 5, leave out ("Act as to hours of employment and holidays") and insert ("Part of this Act with respect to the general conditions as to hours of employment of women and young persons, notices fixing hours of employment, overtime employment of women and young persons, prohibition of use of rooms during intervals, prohibition of Sunday employment, and annual holidays.")—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 8, leave out ("and allowing their employment on Sundays").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 95 to 98 agreed to.

Clause 99 [Certificate of fitness for employment of young persons]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is merely explanatory.

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 37, at end insert ("including facilities for an examining surgeon to inspect any process in which a young person is to be employed").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 100 agreed to.

Clause 101 [Tenement factories]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If your Lordships will look at the beginning of this clause on page 81, you will read: The owner (whether or not he is one of the occupiers) of a tenement factory shall, instead of the occupier, be responsible for any contravention of the provisions of this Act and so on. I think there is something to be said for providing that the owner when he occupies part of the tenement factory should be responsible, but I think it is quite wrong if he is not in occupation of any of the premises that he should be liable to carry out these different things. I think the best thing I can do is not to move the Amendment in my name on the Paper now, but on the Report stage to move to leave out "whether or not he is" and insert "if he is."

Clause 101 agreed to.

Clauses 102 to 104 agreed to.

Clause 105 [Docks, etc.]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The effect of my Amendment to this clause is to apply Clause 21 of the Bill to docks, wharves, quays, warehouses and ships.

Amendment moved— Page 88, line 3, after ("persons") insert ("training and supervision of young persons working at dangerous machines").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 106 agreed to.

Clause 107 [Building operations]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

These three Amendments are put in to remove ambiguity which exists in the Bill at the present time.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

With the approval of your Lordships I will put the three Amendments en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 90, line 18, leave out ("by way of his trade or business")

Page 90, line 19, after ("operations") insert ("to which this Act applies")

Page 90, line 39, leave out ("or was not required to be given").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 108 [Works of engineering construction]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

These Amendments are similar to the last.

Amendments moved—

Page 92, line 21, leave out ("by way of his trade or business")

Page 92, line 22, after ("construction") insert ("to which this Act applies")

Page 92, line 42, leave out ("or was not required to be given").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 109 [Employment of women and young persons in places other than factories in processes connected with lead manufacture or involving the use of lead compounds]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 93, line 19, leave out ("persons who had not attained the age of fourteen") and insert ("all persons who had not attained the age of eighteen").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 110:

Lists of outworkers to be kept in certain trades.

(2) Every district council shall cause the lists received by the council in pursuance of this section to be examined, and shall furnish the name and place of employment of every outworker included in any such list whose place of employment is outside its district to the council in whose district his place of employment is.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "its" ["its district"] and insert "the," and after "district" to insert "of the Council," The noble Viscount said: The Front Bench quoted Fowler against me the other day, and I should like to say that now I propose to quote Fowler against the Front Bench as follows: But if the decision whether a noun of multitude is to be treated as a singular or as a plural is often a difficult business, and when ill made results at worst in a venial blemish, failure to abide by the choice when made, and plunging about between it and they, have and has, its and their, and the like, can only be called insults to the reader. I am sorry to see that my noble friend the Minister for Education is not here. He quoted Fowler against me, but he did not read quite far enough.

Amendments moved—

Page 94, line 5, leave out ("its") and insert ("the")

Page 94, line 5, after ("district") insert ("of the council)).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 111 agreed to.

Clause 112:

Particulars of work and wages to be given to piece-workers.

(2) If the occupier fraudulently uses a false indicator for ascertaining the particulars or amount of any work paid for by the piece, or if any person employed fraudulently alters an automatic indicator, the occupier or person employed, as the case may be, shall be guilty of an offence:

Provided that an indicator shall not be deemed false if it complies with the requirements of this section.

(4) If any person for the purpose of obtaining knowledge of or divulging a trade secret solicits or procures a person employed in a factory to disclose any such particulars, or with that object pays or rewards any such person, or causes any such person to be paid or rewarded for disclosing any such particulars, he shall he guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment proposes to omit the proviso, which was put in the Bill of 1901 and is not necessary in this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 96, leave out lines 35 and 36.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My noble friend tells me that he will accept the second of the two Amendments to this clause which I have put on the Paper, that referring to subsection (4). I will therefore not move the first one.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 4, leave out from ("be") to end of line 6 and insert ("liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 113 [Notice of occupation of factory, and use of mechanical power]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 98, line 8, leave out ("and amount").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 114 [Posting of abstract of Act and notices]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (3) after "injures" to insert "alters." The noble Viscount said: I understand that my noble friend does not accept this Amendment. Therefore, I shall not press it.

Clause 114 agreed to.

Clauses 115 to 118 agreed to.

Clause 119 [Duties of persons employed]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Two Amendments to this clause are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 100, line 22, after ("any") insert ("means or")

Page 100, line 24, after ("the") insert ("means or").—(The Earl of Munster)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 120 to 122 agreed to.

Clause 123 [Powers of inspectors]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There are three drafting Amendments to this clause.

Amendments moved—

Page 102, line 41, leave out from ("respects") to the end of line 42, and insert ("a factory and any persons employed in a factory and any young persons to whom Section ninety-eight of this Act applies")

Page 103, line 9, after ("factory") insert ("or in any employment mentioned in subsection (1) of the said Section ninety-eight")

Page 104, line 2, at end add: ("(5) Any certificate issued by a chief inspector, superintending inspector for a division, or an inspector for a district may be varied or revoked by that inspector or his successor in office.").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 124 and 125 agreed to.

Clause 126 [Appointment and duties of examining surgeons]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is to correct a misprint.

Amendment moved— Page 104, line 17, leave out ("when") and insert ("where").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 104, line 23, after ("revocation") insert ("of appointment").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 127 agreed to.

Clause 128 [Provisions as to county and district councils]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There is a drafting Amendment here.

Amendment moved— Page 107, line 7, after ("be") insert ("guilty of an offence and").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 129 [Provisions as to regulations and orders of Secretary of State]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

All the Amendments to this clause are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 107, line 13, leave out from ("Act") to ("shall") in line 15.

Page 107, line 18, leave out ("or order")

Page 107, line 18, leave out ("or has")

Page 107, line 20, leave out ("or order") in both places.

Page 107, line 13, leave out line 24.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 130 [Offences]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I beg to move a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 108, line 7, leave out ("provision contravened") and insert ("contravention").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 131 to 134 agreed to.

Clause 135 [Forgery of certificates, false entries and false declarations]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There is consequential Amendment here.

Amendment moved— Page 111, line 9, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("one hundred").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 136 to 139 agreed to.

Clause 140:

Prosecution of offences and recovery and application of fines.

(2) In any proceedings under this Act it shall he sufficient in the information to allege that the factory is a factory within the meaning of this Act and to state the name of the ostensible occupier of the factory, or, where the occupier is a firm, the title of the firm.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), after "factory," where that word last occurs, to insert "including any such occupier being a company to which the Companies Act, 1929, applies." The noble Viscount said: As there seems to be some distinction drawn in Clause 144 between a firm and a company I think it will be necessary, or at any rate more prudent, to draw the same distinction in this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 112, line 37, after ("factory") insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The words to which the noble Viscount has referred in Clause 144 were inserted with a special purpose, in view of doubts which have been expressed as to the law in relation to the delivery of documents in the case of companies.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Does not the same thing apply to this?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I understand not.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If the noble Earl will look into it between now arid Report I am satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 140 agreed to.

Clauses 141 to 145 agreed to.

Clause 146 [Power of County Court to modify agreements]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There is a drafting Amendment here.

Amendment moved— Page 155, line 39, leave out ("rules of Court") and insert ("County Court rules").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 146, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 147 to 149 agreed to.

LORD FARINGDON had on the Paper an Amendment, after Clause 149, to insert the following new clause:

"Application to agriculture.

The Secretary of State may by regulations apply any of the provisions of this Act to any work carried on in connection with agriculture, subject to such adaptations or modifications as he may deem expedient."

The noble Lord said: I am given to understand that the cases which I wished to cover by this additional clause will, in fact, be covered by the Bill itself, so I do not move.

Clause 150 agreed to.

Clause 151:

Interpretation of expression "factory."

151.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the expression "factory" means any premises in which, or within the close or curtilage or precincts of which, any person is employed in manual labour in any process for or incidental to any of the following purposes, namely:—

And (whether or not they are factories by reason of the foregoing definition) the expression factory" also includes the following premises in which persons are employed in manual labour, that is to say:—

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (1), after the first "premises," to insert "other than shops as defined in the Shops Act, 1912." The noble Viscount said: As it would take some time to move this Amendment, and as the hour is getting late, I think it might suit your Lordships' convenience if I put it off till the Report stage.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 117, line 19, leave out ("any person is") and insert ("persons are").—The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (1), before "that is to say," to insert "or otherwise." The noble Lord said: This is to extend the operation of the Bill to certain electrical industries. I do not know whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept it. I understand that there are many stations in the electrical supply industry specially working in connection with transforming, which only employ people in a supervisory capacity, and some of them, in fact, make no regular attendance at all. Staff engineers may be at sub-stations for the purpose of testing. The Amendment proposed is to secure for employees engaged in the hazardous employment of switching stations the benefits to which they would be entitled if engaged in a generating station.

Amendment moved— Page 117, line 30, after ("labour") insert ("or otherwise").—(Lord Faringdon.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

A promise was given in another place during the passage of this Bill that we would consult the Electricity Commissioners with a view to putting an Amendment down to meet this point. I understand it is hoped that we shall be in a position to bring forward an Amendment on the Report stage, which I trust will meet the objections of the noble Lord.

LORD FARINGDON

I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment and I shall not now move the next, though, of course, retaining freedom to raise the point on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (1) (ix) the words "not being premises in which such theatrical performances are carried on." The noble Viscount said: The same applies to this Amendment as to my previous one: I will move it on Report.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 120, line 1, after ("factory") insert ("or part of a tenement factory").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 152:

General Interpretation.

152.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:— General register" means the register kept in accordance with the requirements of Section one hundred and nine of this Act: (2) For the purposes of this Act machinery shall be deemed to have been constructed before the passing of this Act and a factory, workroom, or other building shall be deemed to have been constructed or to have been converted for use as a factory or as a workroom before the passing or commencement of this Act or before the coming into operation of any provision of this (as the case may be) if the construction or conversion thereof was begun, or the contract for the construction or conversion thereof was made, before that date. (4) A woman, young person, or child who works in a factory, whether for wages or not, either in a process or in cleaning any part of the factory used for any process, or in cleaning or oiling any part of the machinery, or in any other kind of work whatsoever incidental to or connected with the process, or connected with the article made or otherwise the subject of the process therein, shall, save as is otherwise provided by this Act, he deemed to be employed therein for the purposes of this Act or of any proceedings thereunder. (5) For the purposes of Part VI of this Act, employment shall be deemed to be continuous unless interrupted by an interval of at least half an hour.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert in subsection (1): "'Calendar year' means the period of twelve months beginning with the first day of January in any year." The noble Earl said: This is merely to explain the expression "calendar year."

Amendment moved— Page 121, line so, at end insert the said definition.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the definition of "General register," to leave out "Section one hundred and nine" and to insert "Section one hundred and sixteen." The noble Viscount said: I think this is a drafting slip, because Clause 109 relates to lead processes carried on in places other than factories, and Clause 116 is the clause which deals with registers.

Amendment moved— Page 121, line 3o, leave out ("One hundred and nine") and insert ("one hundred and sixteen").—(Viscount Bertie of Thane.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am much obliged to my noble friend. I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert: (2) For the purposes of this Act machinery or plant shall be deemed to have been constructed or reconstructed before the passing of this Act or the making of regulations under this Act, and a factory or building shall be deemed to have been constructed, reconstructed, extended, added to, or converted for use as a factory, before the passing or commencement of this Act or the coming into operation of any provision of this Act, if the construction, reconstruction, extension, addition, or conversion was begun before the passing or commencement of this Act, or the making of regulations under this Act, or the corning into operation of any provision of the Act, as the case may be. The noble Earl said: This is practically drafting, but it is really put down to make the implication of the Bill more watertight than it is at present.

Amendment moved— Page 123 line 38, leave out subsection (2) rind insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 124, line 13, after ("machinery") insert ("or plant").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert at the end of subsection (4): Provided that any woman employed solely in cleaning a factory or any part thereof, otherwise than in cleaning which is incidental to or connected with any process, shall not be deemed for the purposes of Part VI of this Act to be employed in the factory. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to make it clear that the hours provisions do not apply to charwomen or women cleaners brought in solely for the purpose of cleaning the factory.

Amendment moved— Page 124, line 19, at end insert the said proviso—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The remaining Amendment to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 124, line 20, leave out ("Part VI of").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 153 to 155 agreed to.

Clause 156 [Application to Scotland]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert after subsection (10): (11) Subsection (10) of Section thirty-four, subsection (3) of Section fifty-three and subsection (3) of Section fifty-four of this Act shall have effect as if the words 'by way of complaint' were omitted. The noble Earl said: This is consequential on what has been introduced into the Bill earlier in Amendments which stood in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 127, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 156, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 157 agreed to.

Clause 158 [Provisions as to quarries and pit banks]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There is a drafting Amendment here.

Amendment moved— Page 130, line 1, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 158, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 159 [Repeals and exclusion of certain enactments]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next four Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 130, line 34, leave out from ("Act") to ("may") in line 35 and insert ("and, in so far as it could have been made or given under a particular provision of this Act, shall be deemed to have been made or given under that provision, and any such order or regulation made by the Secretary of State under a power which is exercisable under a corresponding provision of this Act by a different class of instrument, shall be deemed to be an instrument of that class, so, however, that any order or regulation of the Secretary of State which continues in force by virtue of this proviso")

Page 130, line 38, at end insert: ("(2) References in any enactment to a special order made under Section one hundred and twenty-six of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, shall be construed as references to regulations made under this Act. (3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the definition of the expressions 'factory' and 'workshop' for the purposes of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, but save as aforesaid references in any enactment to a factory or workshop within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1929, or any of those Acts, shall be construed as references to a factory within the meaning of this Act. (4) The mention of particular matters in this section shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, with regard to the effect of repeals.")

Page 130, line 39, after ("Section") insert ("one hundred and six of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936 (which relates to sanitary conveniences for factories), section")

Page 130, line 39, leave out ("the Public Health (London) Act, 1936") and insert ("that Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 159, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 160 [Short title, commencement, extent and saving]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

These are both drafting Amendments, and with your Lordships' permission I move them together.

Amendments moved—

Page 131, line 3, after ("shall") insert ("except as otherwise provided")

Page 131, line 28, leave out subsection (5). —(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 160, as amended, agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule [Procedure for making special regulations]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I have been asked, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Melchett, to move the Amendments to paragraph 1 standing in his name, and I beg to do so.

Amendments moved—

Page 133, line 4, after ("publish") insert ("in the London Gazette and")

Page 133, line 4, after ("such") insert ("other").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.