HL Deb 30 June 1938 vol 110 cc425-36

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I should like to take this opportunity of replying to three questions which were addressed to me on the previous stage of this Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The noble Earl asked why the working of overtime is not limited to six weeks in this Bill as it is in the case of the Shops Act. I should like to point out that in the case of shops there is, as we generally recognise, extreme pressure of work over a short time, particularly during the Christmas period. Accordingly the Shops Act provides for concentration of overtime work in a short period of six weeks, with an allowance of overtime up to twelve hours in any one week. The Departmental Committee did not consider that this limitation to six weeks was appropriate to other industries, and accordingly both in Section 98 of the Factories Act and in this Bill overtime may be spread over a period of twelve weeks, the weekly allowance being reduced to six hours. I think it is clear that the overriding limitation of fifty hours a year is the same in all cases.

The noble Earl raised another question and proposed that the dinner interval should be extended from three-quarters of an hour to one hour in all cases where the meal is taken off the premises. This follows the provision of the Shops Act, 1912, which was of course designed to deal with indoor employees in shops who take their dinner off the premises. But so far as van boys are concerned, the boy who takes his dinner during the round at some convenient stopping place would, I think, appear to be no worse off that the shop assistant who takes his meal on the premises and three-quarters of an hour should in our opinion be sufficient, particularly as under the Road Transport Act the driver is only required to take an interval of half an hour. In the case of page boys in hotels and clubs the meal will no doubt be provided on the premises. If, however, in the case of any other of the classes of employment to which the Bill applies, it should he found as a result of experience, that three-quarters of an hour is insufficient, the Home Secretary has power to deal with the matter by way of Regulations under subsection (6) of Clause 1.

Lastly, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about waiters at residential hotels who did not come under the Shops Acts. I am advised that where an hotel has a restaurant which caters mainly for nonresidents, the young waiters there would be under the Shops Acts. It is not, however, proposed that waiters in the residential portion of the hotel or in an hotel which caters solely for residents should be brought within the scope of the Bill. These waiters or waitresses are purely domestic servants and in the smaller hotels will no doubt be employed in other domestic duties. As regards page boys and lift boys in residential hotels, they were included in the Departmental Committee's inquiry because it was represented that this class of employment was urgently in need of regulation, but to go further and attempt in this Bill to control domestic servants in all types of hotels and boarding houses would raise an issue which I think is entirely outside the scope of the present legislation.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

Clause 1 [Conditions of employment]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the first Amendment in my name is merely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, after ("total") insert ("number of").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Options as to application of Act]:

THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice of Amendments, in subsection (1) and subsection (2), to leave out "both" and insert "either." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Amendments are designed slightly to extend the option which is included in Clause 2 of the Bill as it stands at present, but my noble friend Lord Munster has later on got a further Amendment—I think it is an additional clause after Clause 10—which entirely covers the point that I proposed to raise. I am referring now, with your Lordships permission, to the four Amendments in my name to this clause. I should like to say that I think my method of amending this matter is rather better than that of the noble Earl's, because it is much shorter, but in the circumstances I will not move.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Amendment to leave out Clause 2 is really consequential, because your Lordships will observe that I intend to move to insert a similar clause after Clause 10, which, I think, will be the most appropriate place for it.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 2 — (The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:

Hours of young, persons employed in retail trade from factory.

"Employment wholly or mainly outside a factory in collecting, carrying or delivering goods, carrying messages or running errands, being employment for the purposes of retail trade or business carried on from the factory, shall, for the purposes of subsection (5) of Section fifteen of the Shops Act, 1934, be deemed not to be employment in the business of the factory and accordingly the Shops Acts shall apply with respect to that employment."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause is designed to remove a doubt which has arisen in connection with young persons engaged in the retail sale and delivery of bread and milk. The provisions of the Shops Acts apply to these young persons, the majority of whom operate from shops, but I am advised that some start their rounds direct from the bakery or milk pasteurizing plant. Such premises are factories within the meaning of the Factories Act, and subsection (5) of Section 15 of the Shops Act, 1934, which is referred to in the new clause, excludes from the Shops Act persons whose hours of employment are regulated by the Factories Act.

Amendment moved— After clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I do not want to question the merits of this new clause, but apparently it was only put on the Paper quite recently. We regard this as an agreed Bill, and I should like an assurance that these and other important Amendments in the name of the noble Earl are generally agreed by the Trade Union Congress side of the original arrangement.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I think I am perfectly correct in saying that all these Amendments have in fact been agreed between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the bodies to which the noble Lord has referred.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6:

Enforcement.

6.—(1) Except as provided by the two next following subsections, it shall be the duty of the local authority to enforce within its area the provisions of this Act, and for that purpose to institute and carry on such proceedings in respect of contraventions of, or failures to comply with, those provisions as may be necessary to secure the observance thereof, and to appoint inspectors; and an inspector so appointed shall, for the purposes of his powers and duties, have in relation to any premises in connection with a business carried on at which young persons to whom this Act applies are employed all the powers conferred on inspectors in relation to factories by Section one hundred and twenty-three of the Factories Act, 1937, and that section and Section one hundred and twenty-five of that Act shall have effect accordingly; and an inspector may, if so authorised by the local authority, institute and carry on any proceedings on behalf of the local authority.

(2) For the purpose of the enforcement of the provisions of this Act in their application to young persons employed by a railway company, or employed in the employment mentioned in paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of Section ten of this Act, an inspector appointed under the Factories Act, 1937, shall have the same powers and duties as he would have if those provisions were provisions of that Act, and as if the premises in connection with the business carried on at which those persons are employed were a factory.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (1)—namely, to leave out "Except as provided by the two next following subsections" at the beginning, and at the end to insert the following proviso: Provided that, for the purpose of the enforcement of the provisions of this Act in their application to young persons employed as mentioned in the two following subsections, the provisions of those subsections respectively shall have effect to the exclusion of the provisions of this subsection. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the first two Amendments to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 6, line 7, leave out from the beginning to ("it") in line 8. page 6, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl Of Munster.)

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, is it quite clear that these are drafting Amendments which have no substantial effect in regard to the class of page-boys in hotels and clubs? Are those boys left in no worse position after these Amendments are passed than they would have been in had they not been passed? One of the organisations closely concerned with these matters had some doubt about this, and I should like the noble Earl to answer the question I have put.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I understand they will be in no worse position. I had no idea of the doubts to which the noble Viscount has referred and I will certainly look into the matter before the next stage of the Bill. I think I am correct in saying that this proposed change leaves them in precisely the same position.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert "An inspector appointed under the Factories Act, 1937, shall have the same powers and duties." The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is proposed that in the case of railway companies the administration of this Bill shall be undertaken by the Home Office factory inspectors and not by local authorities. It was considered desirable that in the case of a railway company which operates in the area of a large number of local authorities enforcement should be in the hands of one central authority. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 25, at the beginning insert ("An inspector appointed under the Factories Act, 1937, shall have the same powers and duties."—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 27, after ("company") insert ("elsewhere than at a residential hotel").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 29, leave out from ("Act") to ("as") in line 31.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10:

Young persons to whom Act applies.

10.—(1) Except as provided by subsection (3) of this section, this Act shall apply to a young person employed by an employer in any of the following employments, where his employment by that employer is wholly or mainly in that employment or in two or more of those employments taken together, that is to say:— (d) employment at a place of public entertainment or amusement, or at a turkish bath, in carrying messages or running errands, or in the reception of or attendance upon persons resorting thereto;

(3) Nothing in this Act shall apply— (a) with respect to the employment of a young person whose hours of employment are regulated by or under the Factories Act, 1937, the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and the Acts amending that Act, the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1875, or (except in the case of a young person to whom this Act applies by virtue of an election made under subsection (1) of Section two thereof) the Shops Acts;

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (c), to insert: (d) employment in connection with the business carried on at any premises where a newspaper is published, in carrying messages or running errands; The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Viscount Bertie has asked me to move this Amendment. The whole of this matter was thrashed out in Committee when the arguments for this Amendment were put forward. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with them again, unless you particularly wish to hear them.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. Your Lordships will recollect that at an earlier stage the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, raised a point as to whether young persons employed in the newspaper business were covered by this Bill. In order to make quite certain that they are covered His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (1), before "turkish bath," to insert "public swimming bath, bathing place or." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a precisely similar point. It is designed to clear up doubt as to whether young persons employed at these places are covered by the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 25, after ("a") insert ("public swimming bath, bathing place or").—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, in regard to this matter also, I told my noble friend Lord Bertie that we would be prepared to consider this question. We had thought that a public swimming bath came under the definition of "public entertainment," but in order to make it quite clear we are prepared to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice to move, in subsection (3) (a), after "1937," to insert "the Railways Act, 1921." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is exactly similar to one moved by my noble friend Viscount Home on the previous stage of the Bill. It was withdrawn on that occasion because conversations were still in progress with the Home Office as to whether it was possible to exclude from the operations of this Bill railway van boys. I spoke to your Lordships on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill on that subject and I forecast on that occasion that an Amendment would be moved. I have no desire to repeat in detail the arguments I used on that occasion, but I think it is desirable that I should put before your Lordships very briefly some of the arguments, so that you may fully realise the situation as far as railway companies are concerned.

These railway van boys are employed in assisting the men who drive the vans. There is no desire on the part of the railway companies that they should work unduly long hours. In fact, quite the contrary is the desire of the railway companies. But, owing to the nature of their work, it is impossible to avoid on occasions that they should work a considerable number of hours in overtime. Either owing to the difficulties of traffic or, it may be, difficulties caused through customers, they cannot get back to their depots at the time they are supposed to finish work. Equally it is impossible for the railway companies to replace them when their ordinary hours of work are finished because they do not know where they are. This matter was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, on the Committee stage, when he said: … I think I must point out that the young persons employed by the railway companies who would be excluded from the Bill by this Amendment "— that is, the same Amendment as the one I am now dealing with— are in fact being employed for substantially longer hours than the standards recently adopted and approved by Parliament in the Shops and Factories Acts … On the face of it that is quite true. Apparently they do work very long hours on occasions, but the reasons that cause them to work overtime also operate to give them short time on other occasions.

The time that they are saved, however, does not appear, because the railway companies—who I think are almost unique amongst big employers in this respect—have an arrangement with the trade unions concerned by which their employees have a guaranteed day and a guaranteed week. That is to say, if a van boy, by the operation of the traffic or something of that sort, happens to come back to the depot an hour earlier than he should and there is no job for him he goes off, but he is paid for the time that he is off work because he has a guaranteed day. So, although it may appear on occasions that these boys work long hours, in fact they actually get a very large number of hours off, although the shorter hours they work do not appear. This question of the guaranteed day and the guaranteed week is really the crux of the situation. If the hours are limited as they will be under this Bill when it becomes an Act, the railway companies will have to consider making a breach of their agreement with the trade union concerned for a guaranteed day and a guaranteed week. It is an agreement which I believe the unions concerned value very highly indeed, but your Lordships can perfectly well understand that it is impossible for the railway corn-panics to maintain the guaranteed day and the guaranteed week for these boys if it means paying them, not only for overtime in one week, but also for a good many hours which they have off, probably, in subsequent weeks. It does make a very definite breach. I may say also that owing to the guaranteed day and guaranteed week it is impossible to arrive at any spread-over arrangement such as there is in existence under the Shops Acts.

I would like to put it to your Lordships again that these boys are not, as is so often the case with van boys, in a blind-alley occupation. I pointed out to your Lordships be-ore that these boys come in as van boys and spend the whole of their working life as members of the railway staff. It is therefore in no sense a blind-alley occupation. It seems to me that when this legislation is brought into force it will bring good employers down to a dead level with worse employers. That is the only conclusion one can arrive at. The railway companies are in fact better employers than employers who are being legislated for by this Bill, and one can only regard this as an unfortunate tendency. There has been public recognition of the fact that the railway companies are good employers. On that I should like to quote what was said by the Minister of Labour in another place on the Road Haulage Wages (No. 2) Bill. He said: … but: in attempting to improve what is defective machinery in the road haulage industry we ought not to do anything which would have any adverse effect on the admirable machinery for collective bargaining in the railway world …. This provision, as far as railway van boys are concerned, undoubtedly will have an adverse effect upon the arrangements which are admitted by the Minister of Labour himself to be admirable. It is a matter of great regret to the railway companies, but unfortunately His Majesty's Government can see no way in which to meet their views, and in those circumstances I feel that there is no purpose even in my moving tile Amendment which stands in my name.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the next Amendment which stands in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 16, leave out from ("person") to ("agriculture") in line 18 and insert ("in or in connection with").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following clause:

Option to apply either this Act or the Shops Acts in certain cases.

".—(1) An employer who employs young persons at, or in connection with the business carried on at, a residential hotel, a place of public entertainment or amusement, or a public swimming bath, bathing place or turkish bath, being young persons to whom apart from this section the provisions of this Act would apply or the provisions of the Shops Acts would apply, may give notice that he elects that the provisions of this Act shall apply to all such young persons as aforesaid for the time being so employed by him as aforesaid or may give notice that he elects that the provisions of the Shops Acts shall apply to all of them.

(2) When a notice given under the foregoing subsection has taken effect, then, until another notice withdrawing that notice takes effect, the provisions of this Act or of the Shops Acts, as the case may be, shall apply to all the young persons aforesaid, and, in the case of young persons to whom apart from this section those provisions would not have applied, shall apply to them subject to the prescribed adaptations and to the exclusion of the provisions of the Shops Acts or of this Act, as the case may be:

Provided that, where the provisions that are to apply are the provisions of the Shops Acts,—

  1. (a) those provisions shall have effect with the substitution in subsection (5) of Section nine of the Shops Act, 1934, and in Section one of the Shops Act, 1912, for references to half-past one o'clock of references to one o'clock; and
    2. 435
  2. (b) Section five of the Shops Act, 1934, shall have effect only in the case of young persons employed in connection with the business carried on at a residential hotel, and in the case of those persons shall have effect notwithstanding anything in subsection (6) of that section (which enacts that the provisions of the Shops Act, 1934, shall not apply to any person employed in a residential hotel who is not such a shop assistant as is therein mentioned).

(3) A notice to be given under subsection (1) of this section, and a notice withdrawing such a notice, shall be given to the local authority in such form, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, and any such notice shall have effect as from such date after it is given as may be prescribed."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is really consequential upon the leaving out of the second clause in the Bill, and its object is to enable the owners of residential hotels and places of public entertainment to bring all their young persons under one code of regulations instead of having some under the Shops Acts and some under this Bill. Perhaps I need not weary your Lordships with any lengthy explanation of it, but the House will realise that it is really consequential upon leaving out the second clause.

Amendment moved— After Clause so, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, may I express my thanks to the noble Earl for this Amendment, which replaces the ones which were put down in my name earlier.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause II [Regulation of all employment by one employer]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 11. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is practically drafting. Your Lordships will recollect that Clause II deals with cases where a young person to whom this Bill applies is also employed in some other employment by the same employer. This clause has been redrafted for the sake of clearness and has been inserted as part of Clause 0, in which it appears to be in a more appropriate place.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 11.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Interpretation]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on leaving out Clause 11.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 13, at end insert: ("(2) Where a young person who is employed as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) of Section ten of this Act, is also employed by the same employer in any other employment (not being employment mentioned in subsection (3) of that section), any reference in Section one or three of this Act to employment or to hours worked shall, in relation to that young person, include a reference to that other employment and to hours worked therein").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Application to Scotland]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the two Amendments to this clause are both drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 12, leave out ("any reference") and insert ("references to the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, and").(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 14, leave out ("a reference"), and insert ("respectively references to the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937, and").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.