§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr.690
§ DENMAN: "In page 57, line 17, to leave out 'forty-four,' and insert 'forty'."
§ Mr. Denman
I do not propose to move this Amendment. The hour is very late, and we had a most helpful discussion on the earlier Amendment, with which I am quite content.
§ 10.14 p.m.
§ Mr. Mander
I beg to move, in page 57, line 17, at the end, to insert:As from the expiration of a period of four years after the commencement of this Act there shall he substituted for the words 'forty-four hours' the words 'forty hours.'This subject has been well thrashed out in Debate, and I do not intend to go over the ground again, but the Amendment raises a new and definite issue and I think the House ought to take a decision upon it. My right hon. Friend has been good enough to say, in his amiable way, that no doubt within the next few years, long before the next Factory Bill comes to be introduced, some arrangement on these lines will in all probability already be in operation, but that is a very different thing from having it cut-and-dried in a Statute. I cannot help thinking it is a very reasonable and modest demand. In four years' time people will be well satisfied to accept a proposal of this kind.
§ Sir S. Hoare
I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The House will not wish me to go over again the ground that was covered an hour ago.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 189.693
|Division No. 229.]||AYES.||[10.16 p.m.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Charleton, H. C.||Garro Jones, G. M.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Chater, D.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)|
|Adamson, W. M.||Cluse, W. S.||Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Cooks, F. S.||Green, W. H. (Deptford)|
|Amman, C. G.||Cove, W. G.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)|
|Banfield, J. W.||Daggar, G.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)|
|Barnes, A. J.||Dalton, H.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)|
|Barr, J.||Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Harris, Sir P. A.|
|Batey, J.||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Harvey, T, E. (Eng. Univ's.)|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Dobbie, W.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)|
|Bevan, A.||Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)|
|Broad, F. A.||Ede, J. G.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)|
|Bromfield, W.||Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)||Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Hollins, A.|
|Buchanan, G.||Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Hopkin, D.|
|Burke, W. A.||Frankel, D.||Jagger, J.|
|Cape, T.||Gardner, B. W.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)|
|Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Maxton, J.||Short, A.|
|Kelly, W. T.||Messer, F.||Silkin, L.|
|Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Milner, Major J.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Kirby, B. V.||Montague, F.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Lathan, G.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Lawson, J. J.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Leach, W.||Naylor, T. E.||Stephen, C.|
|Lee, F.||Oliver, G. H.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Leonard, W.||Paling, W.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Leslie, J. R.||Parker, J.||Thurtle, E.|
|Little, Sir E. Graham-||Parkinson, J. A.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Logan, D. G.||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Price, M. P.||Walker, J.|
|Lunn, W.||Pritt, D. N.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Quibell, D. J. K.||Welsh, J. C.|
|McEntee, V. La T.||Richards, R. (Wrexham)||Westwood, J.|
|McGhee, H. G.||Ridley, G.||White, H. Graham|
|McGovern, J.||Riley, B.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|MacLaren, A.||Ritson, J.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|MacNeill, Weir, L.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Mander, G. le M.||Sanders, W. S.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Marshall, F.||Sexton. T. M.|
|Mathers, G.||Shinwell, E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Emery, J. F.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Emmott, C. E. G. C.||Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Errington, E.||Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)|
|Apsley, Lord||Everard, W. L.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.|
|Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)||Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.|
|Balniel, Lord||Furness, S. N.||Munro, P.|
|Barrie, Sir C. C.||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Nall, Sir J.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Gauzoni, Sir J.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)||Gluckstein, L. H.||Palmer, G. E. H.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Gower, Sir R. V.||Patrick, C. M.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.||Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Grimston, R. V.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Porritt, R. W.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Gunston, Capt. D. W.||Radford, E. A.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Guy, J. C. M.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Hannah, I. C.||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.|
|Bull, B. B.||Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Ramsden, Sir E.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Rankin, Sir R.|
|Cary, R. A.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buehan-||Rayner, Major R. H.|
|Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Higgs, W. F.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Remer, J. R.|
|Channon, H.||Holmes, J. S.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Christie, J. A.||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Horsbrugh, Florence||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Colfox, Major W. P.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Hudson, R. S. (Southport)||Rowlands, G.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Cox, H. B. T.||Keeling, E. H.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)|
|Crooke, J. S.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Salt, E. W.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||Latham, Sir P.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)||Sandys, E. D.|
|Cross, R. H.||Leckie, J. A.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Selley, H. R.|
|Culverwell, C. T.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)|
|Davies, C. (Montgomery)||Lewis, O.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Denville, Alfred||Lindsay, K. M.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Donner, P, W.||Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.||Lloyd, G. W.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Dower, Major A. V. G.||Lyons, A. M.||Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)|
|Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Dugdale, Major T. L.||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Spens, W. P.|
|Duggan, H. J.||McCorquodale, M. S.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Storey, S.|
|Eckersley, P. T.||McKie, J. H.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Maitland, A.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Markham, S. F.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan||Wise, A. R.|
|Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Titchfield, Marquess of||Watt, G. S. H.||Wragg, H.|
|Touche, G. C.||Wayland, Sir W. A||Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.|
|Tree, A. R. L. F.||Wells, S. R.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|Turton, R. H.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Walker-Smith, Sir J.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.||Major Sir George Davies and|
§ 10.25 p.m.
§ Mr. Rhys Davies
I beg to move, in page 57, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (2).
We are much obliged to the Home Office for making an improvement in the Bill by reducing the maximum amount of labour to 44 hours for young persons between the ages of 14 and 16, but I should like to make a slight protest against what was said by the Home Secretary that no overtime was possible in respect of the 44 hours. I make that protest, because in the Sub-section which I am moving to delete there is a provision that the 44-hour week may be set aside if representations are made from certain quarters. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what conditions apply in connection with these young persons if they are compelled to attend day continuation classes, and can he give us any indication as to what type of representation will succeed in setting aside the 44-hour week in respect of these young persons?
§ 10.26 p.m.
§ Sir S. Hoare
I was correct in saying that there will be no overtime in the case of young persons between the ages of 14 and 16. The exemptions which are referred to in this Clause are with respect to the extension in certain circumstances to a 48-hour week instead of 44 hours.
§ Sir S. Hoare
With regard to the question as to the kind of firms that will be brought into these exemptions, I would rather not give the hon. Member an instance, because that might encourage a particular trade or business to demand exemption. Let me tell the hon. Member, however, by way of assurance that we intend to make these exemptions rigid and effective. We feel very strongly that any firm that is going to enjoy the exemptions will have to make out a very good case.
§ 10.27 p.m.
§ Mr. Kelly
I hope that we are going to hear something more as to what this Sub- 694 section means. Here is a Sub-section which is going to allow individual firms or industries to claim exemption in order to establish a working period of a 48-hour week for these young people, and we are not to be told what type of firm is expected to claim the exemption, what the Home Office has in mind, and who are going to claim that their industry is so dependent upon the work of young people that they must increase their hours. We are not to be told what industry "would be seriously prejudiced" unless there is this increase to 48 hours. There is the statement in the Sub-section that such increased hours must not be injurious to health, but we do know from experience that these extensions of hours are injurious to health.
We get not one word of explanation from the Home Secretary. It looks as if the Home Office do not know who is to apply for these exemptions and that they are leaving the door open for those employers who cannot arrange their business better, to come along and secure a 48-hour week as against the 44 hours. Might we be told what industry or process is so particularly suitable for young persons that they may have their hours increased? What process is it that requires an extra four hours labour for them? To be asked to allow this Subsection to remain in the Bill, without the slightest explanation, is not only unfair to the House but unfair to industry and to the young people engaged in it.
§ Mr. Denman
I hope the Home Secretary will refuse the request made to him that he should indicate the grounds upon which employers might successfully apply. That would be encouraging employers to make an application. I would point out that the application can be granted only after regulations are made; and these regulations have to be submitted to the House. In the last resort the House has some control over them.
§ 10.31 p.m.
§ Miss Wilkinson
Even if the hour is late and we want to go home, we must remember that we are passing a Bill which 695 is going to affect very large numbers of people, and that this particular Clause will affect large numbers of young people. And we have a speech of such extraordinary superficiality as that which the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has just delivered. You must not say a word for fear lest you encourage somebody. We are passing a Bill which will probably have to be judged in a court of law. We are often told that a judge cannot take the intentions of Parliament into consideration, but we seem now to be getting into such a state that we must not even whisper in this House that we have any intentions at all. Really the hon. Member's speech is too flippant for words.
§ Mis Wilkinson
But we are passing a Bill which may become the subject of litigation in the courts of law, and it is what is written in the Bill which will have to be considered, not the intentions of Parliament, or what our secret deep thoughts may be. Indeed, they seem to be so deep that they must not be even whispered. The Clause says that the employer has to prove that the carrying on of the industry will be "seriously prejudiced," and I should imagine that any large employer of a number of women would simply laugh at the suggestion that with such a provision he could not make out some sort of a case why he should be allowed to have these four hours of overtime. The Minister says that this Clause does not deal with overtime. There is no point in saying that the hours shall be 44 if an employer is to be able to make a case for a 48-hour week. The employer has only to say that the industry would be seriously prejudiced unless these hours were given. What is to constitute "seriously prejudiced"? I would remind the Home Secretary, who naturally looks into his own heart and sees his own excellent intentions, and also probably a vista of Home Secretaries following him who have equally lofty ideals, that there may be a different Home Secretary from himself, a gentleman like the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) who thinks that this is all nonesense, anyway. What would such a Home Secretary be likely to regard as being very seriously prejudicial to an industry?
696 The occupier of a factory making what are now called Japanese goods could prove conclusively that if he could not use a large amount of young labour for 48 hours, he would be seriously prejudiced by foreign competition. He would not have to go as far as Japan in order to make out a case, but could do so with regard to Czechoslovakia, for example. He could make out an excellent case that if he could not employ the young people for these extra four hours, he would be seriously prejudiced. If that were the position, the exemptions could be extended and extended until the Clause became a piece of window-dressing, something that looked all right, but through which one could drive, I was about to say a coach and four, but in this case a 40 horse-power limousine.
Sub-section (2, c) opens the door still wider. They have not to prove that their industry would be seriously prejudiced, but that it is suitable for the young persons to continue in when they are older. Except for a very few trades which do not employ any adult labour, this Sub-section would cover almost any trade. If hon. Members will look closely at this Clause, they will see that this provision renders it nugatory for all practical purposes. We have seen this Bill whittled down by pleasant speeches from the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary. We are expected to accept these guarantees, but with all due respect to the Home Secretary, unless the guarantees are in the Bill, they are worthless, except as private and personal assurances that during the exact number of hours that the Home Secretary holds his present position—and he changes his position fairly often—these things will not go on.
§ 10.38 p.m.
§ Sir S. Hoare
I did not intend any discourtesy to the House when I gave a rather short answer. I was brief simply because the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) also made a rather brief defence of his Amendment. I can assure the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) that there are much more effective safeguards than my own good sentiments, whatever they may be. If she will look at the bottom of page 57, she will see the most important safeguard set out, namely, that these exemptions can be made only after an inquiry, and the result of the inquiry has to lie on the 697 Table of this House, and the House can reject it. I should have thought that the conditions for the exemptions were clearly set out in Sub-section (2, a, b and c). The safeguard is that of the inquiry, and the subsequent approval of the House.
§ Mr. S. O. Davies
It is not obligatory on the Secretary of State to conduct an inquiry. The Clause says that:The Secretary of State may direct an inquiry to be held.
§ Miss Wilkinson
In view of what the Home Secretary has just said, would he be willing to delete the word "may" and insert the word "shall"?
§ Sir S. Hoare
It would not make any difference. The regulations cannot be made without the inquiry.
§ 10.40 p.m.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
It is clear that we are being asked to deal with this Amendment without being satisfied as to the meaning or the scope of the Sub-section. That position has arisen because when my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) had proposed his Amendment, the Home Secretary rose immediately to reply, notwithstanding the fact that several other hon. Members were on their feet desirous of making further points. I think it is deplorable when the House is not in Committee that a Minister who is supposed to reply to the whole of the Debate, should rise immediately after an Amendment has been moved, with a view to shortening
§ the discussion and reply only to the speech made from the Opposition Front Bench, although other hon. Members are desirous of intervening. The result is that at a later stage he rises to make further patchy and piecemeal speeches and does not even ask the leave of the House according to rule.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
I understand that when the Mace is on the Table it is necessary for all Members to ask the leave of the House before they can speak a second time in a Debate. At any rate, it is frequently done. I wish to know where it is stated that these regulations are to lie on the Table of the House. I have not been able to find it in the Bill.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
If it is the case that regulations made under this Sub-section are to be laid on the Table of the House, I recognise that that does give us a further opportunity. Therefore while I am not completely satisfied with this proposal, and indeed strongly object to it, I do not propose to intervene further at this stage.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 126.701
|Division No. 230.]||AYES.||[10.42 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Bull, B. R.||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Bullock, Capt. M.||Denviile, Alfred|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Campbell, Sir E. T.||Donner, P. W.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Cartland, J. R. H.||Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Carver, Major W. H.||Dower, Major A. V. G.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Cary, R. A.||Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)|
|Apsley, Lord||Castlereagh, Viscount||Dugdale, Major T. L.|
|Asks, Sir R, W.||Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)||Duggan, H. J.|
|Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Duncan, J. A. L.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)||Eastwood, J. F.|
|Balniel, Lord||Channon, H.||Eckersley, P. T.|
|Barrie, Sir C. C.||Christie, J. A.||Edmondson, Major Sir J.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Ellis, Sir G.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Colfox, Major W. P.||Elliston, Capt. G S.|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Emery, J. F.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (Wst'r S. G'gs)||Emmott, C. E. G. C|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Cox, H. B. T.||Entwistle, Sir C. F.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Craven-Ellis, W.||Everard, W. L.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Crooke, J. S.||Fildes, Sir H.|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||Fremantle, Sir F. E.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Furness, S. N.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Cruddas, Col. B.||Fyfe, D. P. M.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Cu'vcrwell, C. T.||Ganzoni, Sir J.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Davies, C. (Montgomery)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.|
|Gluckstein, L. H.||Markham, S. F.||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)|
|Gower, Sir R. V.||Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Gretton, Col Rt. Hon. J.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||Moller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Grimston, R. V.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Gunston, Capt. D. W.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Guy, J. C. M.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Spens, W. P.|
|Hannah, I. C.||Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)|
|Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)||Munro, P.||Storey, S.|
|Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Nall, Sir J.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Stuart, Lord C. Criohton- (N'thw'h)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.|
|Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Palmer, G. E. H.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Higgs, W. F.||Patrick, C. M.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Thomas, J. P. L|
|Holmes, J. S.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Touche, G. C.|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Porritt, R. W.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Radford, E. A.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.||Turton, R. H.|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Keeling, E. H.||Ramsbotham, H.||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Ramsden, Sir E.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Rankin, Sir R.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Latham, Sir P.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)||Rayner, Major R. H.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Leckie, J. A.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Watt, G. S. H.|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Wayland, Sir W. A|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Renter, J. R.||Wells, S. R.|
|Lindsay, K. M.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|Little, Sir E. Graham-||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Lloyd, G. W.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Wise, A. R.|
|Lyons, A. M.||Rowlands, G.||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Russell, Sir Alexander||Wragg, H.|
|MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.|
|McCorquodale, M. S.||Salt, E. W.|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Samuel, M. R. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|McKie, J. H.||Sandys, E. D.||Major Sir George Davies and Mr.|
|Maitland, A.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.||Cross.|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.||Selley, H. R.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Gardner, B. W.||MacLaren, A.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Garro Jones, G. M.||MacNeill, Weir, L.|
|Adamson, W. M.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon, A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Mander, G. le M.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Marshall, F.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Maxton, J.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Messer, F.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Milner, Major J.|
|Barr, J.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Batey, J.||Groves, T. E.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Bevan, A.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Paling, W.|
|Broad, F. A.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Parker, J.|
|Bromfield, W.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Price, M. P.|
|Burke, W. A.||Hopkin, D.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Cape, T.||Jagger, J.||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Chater, D.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Ridley, G.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Kelly, W. T.||Riley, B.|
|Cove, W. G.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Ritson, J.|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Kirby, B. V.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)|
|Daggar, G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Dalton, H.||Lathan, G.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Merthyr)||Lawson, J. J.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Davies, R. J. (Wtsthoughton)||Leach, W.||Shinwell, E.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lee, F.||Short, A.|
|Day, H.||Leslie, J. R.||Silkin, L.|
|Dobbie, W.||Logan, D. G.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Ede, J. C.||Lunn, W.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||McEntee, V. La T.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||McGhee, H. G.||Stephen, C.|
|Frankel, D.||McGovern, J.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)||Watkins, F. C.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Taylor, R.J. (Morpeth)||Welsh, J. C.||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Thurtle, E.||Wastwood, J.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Tinker, J. J.||White, H. Graham|
|Viant, S. P.||Wilkinson, Ellen||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Walker, J.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.|
Resolution agreed to.
§ 10.51 p.m.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
On a point of Order. A few moments ago I made a comment upon the growing practice of Ministers rising to address the House, while the Mace is on the Table, for a second time without asking the leave of the House, and the Minister dissented from my suggestion that this was a breach of the Rules of the House. This was certainly news to me and to a large number of other hon. Members. If that is the case, it will tend to induce Ministers to rise in the Debate earlier than is conducive to a full discussion on any subject. Therefore, I would ask you to be good enough to give a Ruling on the point, and to say whether Ministers can speak twice when the Mace is on the Table without the leave of the House.
§ Mr. Speaker
The rule is that no Member speaks twice when the House is on the Report stage—neither a Minister nor an ordinary Member. The Minister or a Member in charge of a Bill, however, can speak more than once. Perhaps I had better read the Standing Order:Where a Bill has been committed to a Standing Committee, or has been so committed in respect of any provision, then, at the Report stage of the Bill or provision, the rule against speaking more than once shall not apply to the Member in charge of the Bill or to the Mover of any Amendment or new Clause in respect of that Amendment or Clause.
§ Mr. Garro Jones
May I take it that that does not apply to any Minister other than the Minister actually in charge of the Bill? For example, it does not apply to the Under-Secretary who may be assisting the Minister? Surely it does no harm to clarify the position and to say that the Rule does not apply to other Ministers?
§ Mr. Speaker
I think that it would be very inconvenient to carry that out, because very often the Under-Secretary is in charge of the Bill for the time being, and it would handicap the House if he could not enjoy the same privileges.
§ 10.54 p.m.
§ Mr. Lloyd
I beg to move, in page 58, line 9, at the end, to insert: 702(3) If, at the expiration of a period of one year after the commencement of this Act an inquiry under the last foregoing sub-section is pending or proceeding, or the decision of the Secretary of State after any such inquiry has not been given, this section shall not have effect as respects any class or description of factory to which the inquiry relates until such date as may be appointed by order of the Secretary of State and the date shall, in a case where regulations are made as a result of the inquiry, be the date of the coming into operation of those regulations.This is a very simple Amendment arising out of an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee. The point was that as the Clause was originally drafted it did not come into operation, giving this concession of reduced hours, until two years, and it was strongly urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite that one year would be much better. After considering the matter, we came to the conclusion that we could make the concession as long as we had power to meet a case or difficulty on which an inquiry might actually be pending.
§ 10.55 p.m.
§ Mr. Silkin
Is it not possible under this Amendment for any employer who is concerned to suspend the operation of the reduction of hours to 44 by putting in an application immediately before the expiration of the year? If there is a sufficiently large number of employers who do the same thing, might they, merely by blocking up the work of the Home Office, effectively suspend this reduction of hours? Should not this reduction come into operation at the expiration of the year whether an application is pending or not? I do not think it should be assumed, merely because a person has put in an application, that he should be permitted to contract out of the Act and to continue employing young people for 48 hours. This Amendment, I think, is unnecessary and will merely give encouragement to employers frivolously to put in applications shortly before the expiration of the year.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ 10.57 p.m.
§ Mr. Ridley
I beg to move, in page 58, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (3).
703 The whole value of Clause 70 depends on the character of the regulations which are to be issued under Sub-section (3). My hon. Friends will probably agree with me when I say that we have been witnessing to-night a funeral procession. One attempt after another to make this Bill a decent Measure has been murdered by the majority. I shudder to think what the world with think when it reads the world's Press to-morrow and knows that we have condemned children of 14 to work in factories, and sometimes to work for 48 hours a week. My complaint against Clause 70 is that it is not what it pretends to be. It is coloured with a mixture of Babbitt and Samuel Smiles. Will the Home Secretary say what the character of the governing regulations will be? In Clause 69 there is provided a nine-hour work day and an 11-hour employment day. I wish to know whether the regulations under Clause 70 will require a shorter working day than nine hours and a shorter employment day than 11 hours. It would be possible for an unscrupulous employer to submit proposals to the Home Office which would conform to the terms of Clause 70, and yet deny the workpeople all the advantages which it is assumed that Clause 69 is intended to give. That is to say, that within the terms of Clause 69 and the 11-hour over-all day, a young person can be required to begin work at 7 o'clock in the morning and finish as late as 6 in the evening. I suggest that the unscrupulous employer can conform with the terms of Clause 70 by requiring the same overall period by the process of extending the meal time interval.
§ 11 p.m.
§ Mr. Lloyd
The hon. Member hit upon a point of some substance when he said that it might be possible in certain circumstances for an employer to render of no effect the real object of this provision for securing a 44-hour week by a lengthening of the meal intervals. The circumstances in which he might be able to do so can be prevented under this Sub-section (3). It has been put in for the very purpose of giving the Home Secretary power by regulations to approve an adjustment of the working hours. As my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary told the Committee, there is no 704 other purpose than that and I hope that after that assurance the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. Ridley
I do not want to press the hon. Gentleman, but will he answer specifically my two questions? Will the regulations require a shorter working day than a nine-hour day, and a shorter employment day than an 11 hour day? If I can have that assurance, I shall be satisfied.
§ Mr. Lloyd
I think that must depend upon the circumstances. The overriding consideration is the limit of 44 hours in the week. If the hon. Member will cast his mind back he will remember that we considered in Committee the question whether it might not be better in some circumstances to give a complete half day's holiday and secure the reduction of the four hours by that method. In that case surely it would not be expected that the hours on the remaining days would be shorter than for the 48-hour week, because the reduction would have taken place in the form of a complete half-holiday, which many social workers regard as the best way of bringing it about. I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend intends to use these powers for the purpose of seeing that there is a real, proper value attached to this reduction of hours.
§ Mr. Ridley
I will not say that I am completely satisfied, but I do not propose to divide the House, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.