HL Deb 23 October 1973 vol 345 cc511-3

2.47 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what means are adopted to protect the gainfully employed home-worker from exploitation, and what inspection is made of homes where machines which can be operated by adults and children have been installed for home work.

THE EARL OF GOWRIE

My Lords, in industries covered by wages councils, employers are required to pay home-workers not less than the statutory rates laid down in wages regulation orders. No inspection is made of homes where machines are installed for use by home-workers since the safety provisions of the Factories Act do not apply to such premises. However, the Government's proposals for legislation following the Robens Report provide much greater protection for work of this kind.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, would the noble Earl elaborate? Does he recall the Report published last week by the Commission on Industrial Relations which revealed that people in this country, men, women and possibly adolescents, were being paid at the rate of £8 a week for a 40-hour week, working in their homes? Can he tell me whether the Government will regard this as a matter of urgency? Is he further aware that machines are being sold which may be used in the homes for this purpose?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE

My Lords, in answer to the first part of the supplementary question from the noble Baroness I can give her an unconditional affirmative. The Government treat the subject of low-paid workers as a matter of great urgency, as discussions about Stage 3 of the counter inflation policy show. As to the second part, legislation concerning the improvement of machinery going out to homes will be part of the legislation for the next Parliamentary Session.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that the late Sir Winston Churchill, when in the Liberal Government of 1906 to 1910 —in the year 1909—was responsible for carrying through Parliament what was known as the Trade Boards Act, the purpose of which was to protect people working at home from exploitation? Is he aware that no succeeding Government have ever sought to revive that legislation? Would it not be desirable to introduce legislation of that kind so that people working in their homes—and there are a great many of them—would be protected? They cannot be protected from every employer, because some employers are a bit unscrupulous in these matters; but would the noble Earl not agree that if the Government introduced legislation of that kind it would help?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE

My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will read my original Answer he will see that this Conservative Government are carrying on Sir Winston Churchill's good work.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, should this Conservative Government wait for still more legislation? Have not the Government power now to make clear to the employers of these sweated workers (because it is "sweat shops" that we are talking about) that they have power to threaten them—these outrageous men who are exploiting women and children—that action will be taken?

THE EARL OF GOWRIE

My Lords, as I said, the Government are aware of the concern about what have been called "sweat shops", and as a result the Department of Employment has set up meetings with the local authorities to coordinate control measures for factories with unsuitable working conditions.