HL Deb 26 March 1942 vol 122 cc519-29

LORD GAINFORD had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether any young persons under the age of sixteen are now working in the Potteries over fifty hours per week, and whether it is intended to withdraw the Order of December 23, 1941, permitting such children to be thus employed, and whether another Order has been recently issued to permit a somewhat similar extension of hours being worked by children under sixteen years of age in the cotton industry; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that an apology is due to your Lordships and also to the Government for my raising this topic which was dealt with some six weeks ago and this time without giving adequate Notice. It was, however, only yesterday that I happened to be informed that the extension of the hours of child labour, to which I have taken exception in the potteries, has also been introduced into the textile industry and the spinning section of the cotton industry. If I had deferred calling attention to this matter until after the Recess, the great object which I have of trying to stop an excessive number of hours being worked by children of tender years would be frustrated to a very large extent. I do not wish to travel over the same ground which I covered on February 10, when, by only three votes, your Lordships failed to pass a Resolution expressing regret at any increase of hours of employment of children in the potteries, but I would like to remind your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who replied to me on that occasion, did, to a very large extent, condemn what has been done.

The noble Lord said that the Ministry of Labour and National Service would "closely note what has been said" and the noble Lord expressed the hope that the need for the Order in question would shortly pass away. He admitted that the Government did not say that the Order was desirable or even that it was unobjectionable. The Order in the potteries has now been in existence since December 23 and, as Mr. Bevin said in another place that the Order would be reviewed, I think I am entitled after three months to ask what has been the result of that review, and whether there are many young children still employed up to fifty-three hours a week in the potteries. That is one of the questions which I have upon the Paper. I would like also to remind your Lordships that the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer—now the noble Earl, Lord Selborne—who spoke in that debate said: I am quite sure that your Lordships' House would not view the principle of extending the hours of child labour with anything but disfavour. The noble Lord also said that he had no doubt that the subject would receive further consideration in the light of what had been said that day. That is one of the reasons why I am bringing the matter again for your Lordships' attention so that the opinion of the House may be expressed, if not to-day then at a later sitting.

My complaint against the Labour Department is not that it is seeking to increase production. I am devoting all the time I can to increasing the production of coal and electrical energy, and I believe that everybody else, or nearly everybody else, is doing his or her best to try to produce as much as the country requires to meet the emergencies of this terrible war. But it is not essential, in my view, that the overstrain which is being placed upon young children under sixteen years of age should be continued. I think that the Government are pursuing a very shortsighted policy in pressing children to work very long hours in order to help older people who are having to work longer hours in the interests of production at the present time. My further objection is that this increase of hours is, apparently, being systematically extended, and that without consultation with the parties concerned. For instance, the Order which I now hold in my hand concerning the hours of women and young children, the General Emergency Order of February 5, 1942, for Cotton Spinning or Doubling, was issued without the knowledge of, or any consultation with, the Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners and the Textile Workers' Association, and without the knowledge of the Federation of Master Spinners' Associations. The inspectors of factories, even, were not consulted with regard to this extension.

It seems to me very remarkable that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, when he addressed your Lordships' House on February 10, was not in a position to tell us that not only was this extension going on in the potteries, but that it had, some five days before, been introduced under this Order in the cotton spinning mills of Lancashire. By courtesy of the Ministry, I have secured a copy of that Order. I should like to point out that it is very difficult to get a copy of an Order of this kind, or to find out what the Government may be doing in connexion with the extension of the hours of women and children in our factories. This document has been given to me, as I say, by the Labour Department. I could not get it from the Stationery Office. I have not been able to find a copy of it in your Lordships' House. It is certainly not in the Library, and I was told by the librarian that a copy would not be in your Lordships' House until more than a year hence, when it would come here in the form of a bound volume. Well, as I say, these things are being done without the knowledge of Parliament, and that is one of my excuses for raising this matter to-day. This Order reads as follows: By virtue of the powers conferred on him by Regulation 59 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939 … the Minister of Labour … hereby exempts from the provisions of the Factories Act, 1937, as to hours of employment and holidays as respects women and young persons employed in accordance with the conditions specified in the Schedule to this Order, factories in which the spinning or doubling of cotton yarn is carried on. … This Order shall remain in force until the 28th March, 1942, unless sooner revoked by order of the Minister. Well, of course it remains in force until it is revoked and it is for Parliament, in its discretion, to revoke it or for the Government to withdraw it.

Now the total hours which may be worked in any week, under the Schedule may exceed 48 but shall not exceed such number as may be specified by the district inspector up to 52. In the Factories Act, 1937, it was laid down as a principle that young persons should work only 44 hours a week, but, during the passing of the Bill through Parliament, a clause was inserted providing that in special circumstances 48 hours might be worked by women and young children. Unfortunately, in the cotton trade 48 hours have prevailed for some time, but now the number is extended to 52, and in Paragraph 2 of the Schedule it is stated that: "The period of employment shall not exceed 10½ hours in any day." I think your Lordships will agree with me that for children of fourteen or fifteen to be employed for 10½ hours a day means that they are working an excessive number of hours. As I have already said, I maintain that this is a retrograde step, that it is not justified, and that it very nearly amounts to a lack of humanity towards the children of our country.

The two industries to which I am referring—the pottery industry and the cotton-spinning industry—are industries in which the circumstances in which the children work are appalling. Children in the potteries have to go into heated stoves, as I explained before, taking the moulds backwards and forwards. In the cotton industry, so that the cotton may be worked satisfactorily, there has to be a great amount of humidity in the atmosphere and great heat, and the children work these long hours in a humid, heated atmosphere which is really unhealthy. For the children to have to work for such long periods in those conditions seems to me almost cruel. I cannot understand why members of the Government acquiesce in its being done and in its being concealed, as it has been to a very large extent, from Parliament.

It may be said, and I suppose that it will be said, by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, or by anyone who attempts on behalf of the Government to defend this state of affairs, that this is necessary in order that the work should be done, and that there is a great demand for the production of cotton, and for mugs, cups, saucers and other things produced in the potteries; and that therefore these children must be employed for these long hours. As I have said before, it is not easy for me to explain how these physical difficulties can be overcome, but that they can be overcome if everybody desires them to be overcome I am quite certain. It seems to me that an ordinary parent, rather than allow his boy or girl to be overworked, would go into the factory himself and do the child's work for the excess hours. There are great numbers of women who could do this work. The work that these children do in the cotton industry is to piece together broken threads. That is their main duty. They also carry skips containing numbers of bobbins backwards and forwards to the machinery, but their main duty is to piece together the broken threads as they occur in the machinery. There are "big pieces" and "little pieces," as they are called, the "little pieces" being children of fourteen and fifteen and the "big pieces" being the women who do similar work in joining the threads together. It seems to me possible that there are in this country evacuees and other women who, rather than that these children should suffer, would be prepared to come forward and do this extra work, if it is absolutely necessary.

That is my case. I suggest to your Lordships that the Government ought to take steps to bring these Orders to an end, since they involve the sacrifice of the children's interests. We know that these children ought to be out-of-doors very much more, and that they should have time for recreation and for play and for further education. Of all these things they are deprived, and it seems to me to be a monstrous system that the Government have accepted under the pressure of the necessity for production. I do not ask these questions with a view to any decision being taken to-day, but, if the Government's reply is not satisfactory to your Lordships' House, I hope that this matter may be raised again at an early date after the Recess. I beg to move.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has put his case with very great moderation and with very great force. Two very important principles have been raised. The first is the constitutional principle. I am really horrified to hear that these Orders were not obtainable in the Library of your Lordships' House until a year after the event, and then only in a bound volume. In war-time we cannot always, perhaps, be too particular about constitutional procedures, but it does seem to me that, more particularly when the liberty of the subject is necessarily to some extent infringed for the purposes of carrying on in wartime, such safeguards as there are with regard to information about these Orders ought to be available. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will be able to see that that matter at all events is rectified.

On the other point, the merits of the question, I cannot add anything to what the noble Lord opposite has said, because the case which he has made is such a strong one; but I should like to make one practical suggestion to the noble Lord. There is in existence a body called the Industrial Health Research Board, a Committee of the Medical Research Council, which, as your Lordships know, is a Committee of the Privy Council. That Industrial Health Research Board is versed in these very matters. It is for the examination of such matters that that body exists, and it contains the best scientific advisers on the matter that the country possesses. I would beg the noble Lord to refer this matter to the Industrial Health Research Board of the Medical Research Council, because, however great the urgency, I very much doubt whether the object sought to be achieved by these Orders will in fact be attained, as everybody knows—we learnt it ill the last war, and it is pitiful that we should have to re-learn it now—that these very long hours do not in the long run serve the purpose of greater output. I make that suggestion, and I hope that the noble Lord will give it his sympathetic consideration.

LORD WEDGWOOD

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will give us an opportunity of discussing this matter again after the Recess, because it is rather extraordinary, after the debate which took place the other day, and after the Division which took place, that the Government have gone directly contrary to the debate, if not to the wishes of this House. It is extraordinary that the cotton trade has been added to the pottery trade in this way, despite the debate which took place.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, the difficulties involved in the Order of December 23, in relation to the employment of young children in the potteries trade, were considered in some detail on February 10 of this year, and then; is therefore no need for me to recall the arguments then used. I propose to deal only with the specific points raised in the Motion which is before us to-day. The Order of December 23 last enables the district inspector of factories to authorize at a particular works the employment of women and young persons for hours exceeding forty-eight but not exceeding fifty-three. According to information obtained, on March 21 such authorizations had up to that date been issued for about twenty-five factories. In four of those cases hours in excess of fifty were not asked for. As regards the remainder, at some of the factories the permission had not been so far used at all, and at others it appeared to have been used only intermittently, or not to the extent of fifty-three hours. The number of young persons under sixteen employed for more than forty-eight hours in at any rate some weeks appears to have been something less than 200 as a whole.

On the question of withdrawing the Order, I am advised that it would not be right to assume that because it has so far been little used it can now be dispensed with altogether, even as regards those under sixteen. It may, for instance, be important to use it intermittently to avoid what are called bottle-necks. The Minister of Labour stated on March 4 in the House of Commons that he could not usefully consider any modification of the Order until the circumstances which made it necessary passed, but he is keeping a close watch on the matter; and on March 19 he said that he hoped to be able to make a statement about it in the near future.

As regards the cotton industry, the position is that on February 5 the Minister of Labour made an Order for the cotton spinning industry, under which working hours up to fifty-two can be authorized for women and young persons, irrespective of whether they are under or over sixteen. The Minister was advised that urgent war requirements necessitated longer hours of work in cotton spinning mills, and representatives of both sides had agreed to increase them up to fifty-two on the basis that the new scheme would apply irrespective of age. I am informed that the employers' association and the trade unions in the cotton trade were consulted about the Cotton Order, that the Order was based on their agreement, and leaders on both sides were shown the Order in draft before it was issued. On these grounds, therefore, the Minister made the Order concerned. He knew of the extent to which the cotton industry is organized, with assistants under sixteen. He decided that he could not exclude them from the Order permitting longer hours for others working with them. This Order has been used to a substantial extent, and the Cotton Controller has published figures showing that the weekly output aimed at has been nearly reached since the longer hours were introduced, though not fully obtained. In view of this, the Order is being continued in force for the present, but the Minister of Labour certainly does not intend to allow it to continue after the necessity for it has passed. So far as Papers are concerned, I will see that that point is referred to the quarters able to deal with it, as also the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in regard to the Industrial Research Board.

That is how the matter stands, as I understand it, to-day. The Minister of Labour has the whole question under review and an early statement is likely to be made. The Orders under dispute were asked for by both sides in the industry, and they were made in order to meet essential and urgent needs caused by the war. They are at present, as I say, under examination, and if it is found possible to do so those Orders will be rescinded. Meanwhile, I ask the House to remember, looking at the matter generally, that war imposes sacrifices upon us all, and no sacrifice is so difficult to make as that which we think involves principles and practices which we regard as right. Have we not heard to-day that war compels us to abate some of our demands and to tolerate things that we should not in ordinary circumstances admit? As a matter of public duty I personally have to do many things that I should not choose to do as a personal matter. I have sometimes to remain silent when I feel that I ought to speak, and sometimes I have to speak when I should prefer to remain silent. I suggest that the House should be satisfied with the statement that I have made, that the whole question is under immediate review and that a statement in regard to these Orders will be shortly made.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I think we are indebted to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches for the pertinacity with which he has directed the attention of the House to this matter and for the deep concern that he has shown for the welfare of the adolescent workers. I must confess that I listened with considerable regret to the statement that has just been made on behalf of the Government. It was not very enlightening to hear that during some weeks there have been no more than 200 children under sixteen employed for these long hours in the potteries. It would be more interesting to hear how many children of this age were employed during average weeks. Indeed, for the cotton industry the noble Lord did not vouchsafe any figures at all. I think that our disappointment is par- ticularly sharp because the Minister of Labour did say in another place a very short while ago that he hoped to be able to withdraw the Order affecting child workers in the potteries. From what we have heard it would appear that this Order and the Order applying to the cotton industry are to be continued for an indefinite period. The noble Lord opposite was not able to say that the Order would be withdrawn within even a short period of time; he gave no limit to its operation.

But I think there is a more important point involved even than this. This is a matter of policy, and we should be entitled to hear from the Government how far they intend to go and to what extent it is regarded as essential in war-time to eat into this protective legislation. This Order has now been extended from the potteries to the cotton industry. Is this the thin end of a very big wedge? How many more industries connected with the war will be affected sooner or later by these restrictions on the protection afforded by Statute to women and adolescent workers? That is a matter which I hope we may hear about in good time. It is certainly not right and proper that steps of such importance should be taken without Parliament being fully informed and given notice some time ahead. I was glad and grateful for one point in the speech of the noble Lord opposite. He said he would draw the attention of the Ministry to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that the Industrial Medical Research Board should be invited to consider the effects of these long hours on the health of the children employed. That was a suggestion I made when I addressed the House on this subject a short while ago, and now that I have support in other quarters I hope the Government may pay immediate attention to it. I very much hope the volume of public opinion which has shown itself to be in support of the noble Lord will cause the Government to consider their policy very deeply, and take Parliament into their confidence to the full extent at the earliest opportunity.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, I express sympathy with the noble Lord in the difficulty of his position. We all have to make sacrifices, and it is not always easy to say what exactly one feels in one's heart, even when representing a Government Department. I wish to accept the correction the noble Lord has made in the statement I made in regard to consultation with the parties concerned. I was informed they had not been adequately consulted, but I now understand from the noble Lord that they were consulted beforehand. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.