I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words,

"Without prejudice and in addition to the provisions of Section four of the Munitions of War Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act'),"

Perhaps in moving this first Amendment I might take the opportunity to say I have a large number of Amendments on the Paper. Some of them are very important, some are of a drafting nature, and one or two, I regret to say are of a grammatical nature. I find that in the hurry in which this Bill has been drafted grammar has not always been quite carefully attended to. In regard to the Amendment I am now moving, I think it is quite obvious these words ought to go in. They may not be essential, but it is clearly intended that the powers under this Clause should be in addition to those under the principal Act.

Some of the Amendments of my hon. Friend I shall have pleasure in accepting. Some are, as my hon. Friend points out, of a drafting nature. One, I think, is an Amendment of substance which I am prepared to accept, but this one is not necessary, and I think might be mischievous. Of course these powers will be in addition to the powers already conferred by the original Act, but it is quite unnecessary to insert words of this character in an amending Act, and it would be establishing a precedent which, I think, would be very undesirable. Once you insert it you will have to insert it in every amending Act of any character or description.

I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move to leave out the word "establishments" ["apply to such establishments"], and to insert instead thereof the words "an establishment."

At first sight it might appear that the ingenuity of my hon. Friend had alighted upon a drafting error in the Section. I think, however, that further consideration will satisfy him that that is not really the case. If he will consider what is the effect of adding the singular in this line and in a later line, it will be necessary then to make a separate Order for each establishment.

I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add,

"(2) Notwithstanding any provision in Section four of the principal Act to the contrary, wherever any establishment or part of an establishment is or becomes one in which munitions work is carried on within the meaning of this Act or the principal Act such establish- ment or part of an establishment shall, so long as such munitions work is carried on, be deemed for all purposes to be a controlled establishment as if an Order had been made under Section four of the principal Act to that effect."

I may say briefly that the reasons for my Amendment are these: In a great many of the big railway establishments munitions are being made, but those are not "controlled." The consequence is that they are employing female labour at less than standard rates of wages, and thus are seeking to take advantage of the Treasury agreement between the trade unions and the Minister of Munitions. A great many small establishments are working as sub-contractors of big munition firms, and wherever munitions are being made under such conditions those places should come within the control of the Minister of Munitions. The right hon. Gentleman knows the circumstances just as well as I do, so that there is no need for me to elaborate the point. It will give the Minister of Munitions more control over labour, and give general satisfaction.

I agree with the objects which my hon. Friend has in view, but I think this Amendment carries him very much further than either he or I desire to go. We have full powers at the present time to declare a railway workshop a controlled establishment, and I know the railway companies are very anxious to eliminate those provisions from the Bill. Nevertheless, we propose to take full powers purely as a matter of administration. My hon. Friend's Amendment would compel us to declare any shop where the slightest bit of work has been done by way of a sub-contract a controlled establishment, and I think he will at once see that it would be impossible for us to proceed on those lines. We have 2,000 controlled establishments, and if we had also in addition to control every establishment where anything has been done in a workshop which may be an infinitesimal portion of their output, it would be quite impossible to work them. I think my hon. Friend will see that this Amendment may hamper us very seriously. Take, for instance, firms which are now doing some small jobs, not because they pay, but because they are convinced that they are making a real contribution to the output of munitions. If firms doing that in a small way were to be declared controlled establishments the moment they assisted us even in the minutest degree, we should be confronted with immense difficulties. A few mills might be turning out boxes, which might be a very small part of their work, and the result might be a disinclination to take these small sub-contracts. I think the hon. Member had better leave this matter where it is in the amended Bill, because we have full power to declare establishments controlled establishments where there is a substantial part of the work of munitions done. I am not prejudging the question whether railway works ought to be declared munition shops, but we have taken full power to do so, and therefore I cannot accede to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

I am conscious that this Amendment is one of a far-reaching character, but I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman cannot do something to meet us, not in the small, infinitesimal instances he has given, but in the larger cases of the railway companies. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and he knows as well as I do, that amongst skilled traders there is a great deal of friction at the present moment with respect to railway companies taking advantage of the agreement without its corresponding obligations, and they are diluting labour, not only so far as the making of munitions is concerned, but in their ordinary occupations. We think that is very unfair on the part of railway companies, and we press upon the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot meet us now, that at any rate he should consider the subject, so that our ideas may be met with respect to these big companies on the Report stage, or he might give us an undertaking that he would bring such parts of these railway shops as are making munitions under the Ministry of Munitions by declaring them controlled establishments. If he would do that, we should be perfectly satisfied. Our only desire is to prevent the friction that is prevalent at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman knows that is so. as well as I do, because the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and other large-trade unions have been making very strong representations upon that point, and therefore I would press upon the Minister of Munitions the necessity of making an endeavour to meet us. He can accept my assurance that we have no desire to prolong the proceedings in the Committee stage. Our only desire is to so amend the Bill that it will be a more perfect measure than when it was introduced. We desire to help and we do not want to hinder, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet our representations on this matter.

I will promise to consider what my hon. Friend has said. With regard to railway works which he has in mind, the Board of Trade ask us not to come to any decision on that subject until they have had a further opportunity of considering the matter. I will promise my hon. Friend that I will give this matter full consideration.

I am not sure that this case could not be met by issuing rules. My hon. Friend referred to railway companies where there are railway shops, but they are in a minority. Under Clause 6 of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman brings in a large number of contractor shops in the building trade, and that would mean that anything between 35 per cent. and 100 per cent. of the workmen may be engaged in work for the Munitions Department, or the Government. The contractors in workshops may have only 25 per cent. of their men engaged on munitions work. What is happening where a very small percentage of the men are employed on Government work? Proprietors of those workshops are trying to impose the same conditions on the rest of the workmen employed, and they claim that the rules of the trade are to be suspended for all those working in the shop, and that they have a right to treat the labour as they like, simply because they are doing a small amount of work for the Government. We say it ought to be made clear that so far as the workmen or women engaged on the work of the Government are concerned, they must comply with the conditions that apply to a controlled establishment, and as far as the rest of the works are concerned they should not be allowed to dilute the labour, as they claim they have the right to do under the original Act. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will issue rules which will make it quite clear to contractors and private works that they cannot dilute the labour in any other section of the shop except that part which is engaged on Government work.

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of Section six of Principal Act.)

(1) Where a workman has entered into an undertaking with the Minister of Munitions under Section six of the principal Act, and was at the time of entering into that undertaking in the employment of any employer, then if that employer within the period of six weeks from the date of the undertaking dismisses that workman from his employment, he shall be guilty of an offence against the principal Act, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, unless he proves that he had reasonable cause for dismissing the workman.

(2) It is hereby declared that where the fulfilment by any workman of any contract is interfered with by the necessity on his part of complying with an undertaking entered into by him under Section six of the principal Act, that necessity is a good defence to any action or proceedings taken against that workman in respect of the non-fulfilment of the contract so far as it is due to the interference and he shall be entitled to enter into such an undertaking notwithstanding the existence of such a contract.

(3) Section six of the principal Act shall apply to a workman who had before the passing of the principal Act entered into an undertaking of a nature similar to that mentioned in that Section in like manner as if the undertaking had been entered into in pursuance of that Section.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "workman" ["dismisses that workman from his employment"], to insert the words "or causes or allows the workman to be dismissed."

I hope that I shall have the sympathy, or at any rate the attention, of the Labour party in this Amendment. Do I understand that the Attorney-General is prepared to accept it?

If there were any doubt as to my hon. Friend's, purpose being achieved, we should have no difficulty at all in accepting this Amendment; but I can assure my hon. Friend, however laudable the object of the Amendment may be, that it is superfluous. If it were the law that the employer would not be responsible if he allowed or caused the workman to be dismissed, there would be some substance in the hon. Member's point, but I can assure him that he is in error and that the employer is responsible in every case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "against," and to insert instead thereof the word "under."

I accept the Amendment.

Question, "That the word 'against' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Word "under" there inserted in the Bill.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "and" ["an offence against the principal Act, and"], to insert the words "(without prejudice and in addition to any civil liability)."

I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. It is important for this reason: The law with regard to the civil right of the workman is quite clear, and when it is a criminal matter we know what his rights are; but the Munitions Acts, both the original Act and this Act, are Acts which are on the border line between the civil and the criminal law; they create penal offences, but they are distinctly offences of an indefinite, or rather of a new character. I wish, by this Amendment, to retain for the workman who is dismissed his right to sue in the Civil Courts. I hope my point will be seen. I think it is quite clear, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

My hon. Friend's point is certainly understood, and he very clearly explained it; but here, again, while his object is very praiseworthy, it is wholly unnecessary to carry it into effect in the manner he suggests.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "he had," and to insert instead thereof the words "there was."

The Amendment is consequential.

I accept it.

Question, "That the words 'he has' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Words "there was" there inserted in the Bill.

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).

This Sub-section is intended to bring within the Munitions Act the workman who gave the undertaking as a munition volunteer before the passing of the Act. The Sub-section would place any workman who has given such an undertaking in the same position as if he had entered into that undertaking after the passing of the Act. My objection to the Sub-section as it stands is mainly on account of its wording. The phrase is used "entered into an undertaking of a nature similar to that mentioned in that Section." I am sure that the Attorney-General knows the danger in the words "similar to," and how difficult it has proved in a great many cases to determine what is meant by such words as "similar to" and "like"; indeed, in discussing a Bill which was before the House in the earlier days of this week, an Amendment which contained these words was objected to solely on the ground of the difficulty of interpreting them. I do not know how many men have entered into such undertakings and whose position is, therefore, in the contemplation of the Munitions Department, but it seems to me, if they entered into the undertaking before the passing of the Act, that it should be a very simple matter to get them to renew their undertaking subsequent to the passing of the Act. The difficulty is that the Sub-section, as drawn, might force upon a man an undertaking which was in some respects different from that to which he had actually agreed before the passing of the Act. I suggest that this might be met by dispensing with the words "similar to" and inserting some such words as "in terms of." The nature of the undertaking itself is clearly defined in Section 6 of the original Act. Consequently, if such a change were made, there would be no risk of any man by the terms of this Subsection being forced into an undertaking which he himself had not in contemplation when he gave the undertaking.

My hon. Friend says correctly that the object of this Sub-section is to secure that munition volunteers who gave their undertaking during, or even shortly before, the passing of the original Act, shall be in the same position as those munition volunteers who gave their undertaking subsequently. I quite see it is not his desire that there should be two classes of munition volunteers; all he desires is that the man who gave the undertaking at this time should not be forced by these words into some other form of undertaking. That is met by the fact that we have not changed the undertaking. The undertaking is the same. My right hon. Friend, however, will consider whether he can meet the hon. Member's point by using these words or some other words. We are quite in argeement as to what is intended, and we will try and meet the hon. Member's point on the Report stage.

As a matter of fact, if the undertaking has been exactly the same as applied to both classes of men, no difficulty need arise. It is only that there might be some variation in the undertaking before and after the passing of the original Act. Of course, if there is no such variation, it is not necessary to make the alteration. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Off ences by Employers in Connection with Munition Workers Assigned to them.)

Where a person has been temporarily released from naval or military service for the purpose of employment on munitions work, or a workman who has entered into an undertaking with the Minister of Munitions under Section six of the principal Act, or to whom that Section is applied by this Act, has been assigned to any employer, and that employer has entered into an undertaking with the Minister of Munitions as to the class or description of work on which the person or workman so assigned to him is to be employed, then, if the employer acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of the undertaking, he shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act and liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

I beg to move, after the word "on" ["for the purpose of employment on munitions work"], to insert the words "or in connection with."

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: After the word "on" ["class or description of work on which"], to insert the words "or in connection with."—[ Mr. King. ]

I beg to move, after the word "and" ["and liable to a fine"], to insert the words "shall be."

I hope this will be accepted. It is the phraseology which was used last year both in this Bill and in the principal Act.

This is a pure question of literary taste.

I like refined literary taste better than a diffuse and irregular one, and it only puts the phrase exactly as it is in the principal Act.

You make it more diffuse.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I would just like to make one observation. I have not put down any Amendment, but it appears to me that a fine of £5 does not fill the bill. An employer would very readily pay a small fine of that character, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that between now and Report stage he should consider as to whether that fine ought not to be increased.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 7 of Principal Act.)

(1) The certificate required to be held by a workman under Section seven of the principal Act shall be a certificate that the workman is free to accept other employment, instead of a certificate that he has left with the consent of his employer, and a munitions tribunal may, in lieu of granting such a certificate as it is empowered to grant under that Section itself, grant a certificate that the workman is free to accept other employment, and accordingly that Section shall have effect as if for the words "that he left work with the consent of his employer or a certificate from the munitions tribunal that the consent has been unreasonably withheld" there were substituted the words "or from a munitions tribunal that he is free to accept other employment," and for the words "that the consent of an employer has been unreasonably withheld" there were substituted the words "that such a certificate as aforesaid has been unreasonably refused by an employer," and for the words "grant a certificate which shall for the purposes of this Section have the same effect as a certificate from the employer" there were substituted the words "itself issue such a certificate or order the issue of such a certificate by the employer."

(2) Where a workman employed on or in connection with munitions work in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of Section seven of the principal Act are for the time being applied by an order made thereunder is dismissed or discharged by his employer, the employer shall forthwith, on his leaving his employment, give him such a certificate as aforesaid, and if he fails to do so, a munitions tribunal may, in addition to issuing or ordering the issue to him of such a certificate, order the payment to him by the employer of such sum, not exceeding five pounds, as the tribunal may think fit, unless the tribunal is of opinion that the workman was guilty of misconduct for the purpose of obtaining dismissal or discharge.

This Sub-section shall apply to a workman who leaves his employment on the ground that he has been suspended without wages for a period of more than three days in like manner as if he had been dismissed or discharged by his employer.

(3) Where a contract of service with a workman employed on or in connection with munitions work in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of Section seven of the principal Act are for the time being applied by an order of the Minister of Munitions is terminated by dismissal and less than one week's notice in writing or wages in lieu of notice has or have been given, the employer shall, subject to the provisions of this Subsection, within twenty-four hours of giving notice of dismissal to the workman report the matter in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made by the Minister of Munitions, and such rules shall provide for the determination by a munition tribunal (in case of difference) of the amount, if any, and not in any case exceeding five pounds, which is to be paid by the employer to the workman in lieu of notice, and for the payment of the sum so determined to the workman, unless the tribunal is of opinion that owing to the circumstances of the employment or misconduct of the workman the employer had reasonable cause for dismissing the workman without a week's notice:

Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to workmen engaged in ship repairing, or to any class of workmen exempted in the prescribed manner on the ground that the circumstances of their employment were such that the provisions of this Sub-section ought not to apply to them.

(4) The provisions of Section seven of the principal Act which prohibit the giving of employment to workmen in the circumstances mentioned in that Section shall not apply so as to prevent the giving of employment to a workman in a controlled establishment to which he has been assigned by the Minister of Munitions in pursuance of Section six of the principal Act.

(5) In determining whether the grant of a certificate has been unreasonably refused for the purposes of Section seven of the principal Act as amended by this Section, a munitions tribunal shall take into consideration the question whether the workman has left or desires to leave his work for the purpose of undertaking any class of work in which his skill or other personal qualifications could be employed with greater advantage to the national interests.

(6) The Minister of Munitions may make rules for carrying Section seven of the principal Act as amended by this Section into effect, and in particular may by such rules provide—

( a ) for the issue, form, custody, duration, delivery up, and replacement in case of loss or destruction, of certificates;

( b ) for the issue of certificates to the effect that a person is not engaged on or in connection with munitions work;

( c ) for prohibiting the insertion in a certificate issued by an employer of any matter other than the prescribed particulars;

and may provide for any breach of such rules being punishable as an offence under the principal Act with a fine not exceeding five pounds.

(7) This Section shall not come into operation until such date as may be fixed by the rules made thereunder.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "from" ["from the munitions tribunal"].

I will not go into the reasons that have induced me to propose this Amendment. They have perhaps been considered already.

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert,

"(2) If any employer fails to issue a certificate which, under Section seven of the principal Act as amended by this Section, he is ordered to issue he shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act and shall be liable to be punished as though he had failed to comply with an award."

Will this Amendment be accepted? There seems to be no provision as to what would happen if an employer refuses or neglects to issue a certificate. If he was guilty of an offence under the principal Act then, under Section 14 of that Act, he would be liable to a fine of £50. It is not quite clear. I think this makes it quite clear, and puts the position from the point of view of the workman, making him equal. He understands in the Act that he has this right to demand the certificate.

May I suggest that the whole of this Clause is very involved and not rightly understood, and I would suggest that between now and Report stage it should be considered whether the whole of this Clause could not be put into much simpler language so that it might be more easily understood? I must confess that in our study of the Bill we found it most involved and most difficult to understand.

I think my right hon. Friend might consider leaving out the whole Clause and inserting Section 7 of the principal Act as hereby repealed. It would simplify the whole matter.

I realise the importance of the point of my hon. Friend, and will consider it on Report. With regard to the point made by Mr. King, the case will be this: A workman applies for a certificate; all he has to do is to remain in his employment till the case is decided. The other case, where a certificate has been refused, is dealt with under Section (2) of this Clause. In this case the workman applies for his certificate and all he has to do is to keep in his employment till it is decided; therefore I accept.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

I beg to move at the end of Section (1) to insert the words,

"A munitions tribunal may award compensation to a workman in respect of any time during which he has been prevented from earning wages by the failure or the unreasonable refusal of the employer to grant such a certificate, and may award also an allowance for expenses and loss of working time, and such sum shall be payable by such persons as the tribunal may decide."

My Amendment is practically identical with an Amendment farther down in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport. If the form of that Amendment is preferred I should be glad to accept it, and I beg to move that. I believe this is an Amendment which is very important in the interests of the worker. It is of great importance that the tribunal should be able to afford compensation to any worker who would be unfairly prevented from earning wages, and also compensation for loss of time. I hope the Minister of Munitions will agree to accept it.

This is really exactly the same point as was raised in a previous Amendment. If a workman were dismissed then he has a grievance, and we deal with that later on. But this is the case of a workman who wants to leave of his own accord, and all we say is he must remain in his employment until he gets his certificate by applying to a tribunal who can adjudicate upon the case. I do not see why any compensation should be paid to him, because the employer is not getting rid of him. The man's wages are going on.

When it is an unreasonable refusal, or if the tribunal thinks it is unreasonable, he should be compensated.

But if it is an unreasonable refusal the tribunal can grant him a certificate. He applies to the tribunal but he loses no wages, because his wages are going on.

He is getting smaller wages when he might get big wages elsewhere. It is an important matter.

There is more in the point than is mentioned by the Minister of Munitions. Let me put this point to him: First of all, assume that a workman does have to remain in his place until he gets his certificate from the Court; if the employer has unreasonably refused the man's certificate in the first instance, and if it is afterwards ruled by the Court that his certificate has been unreasonably refused, and if he has to pay the cost of the railway journeys or other expenses, and has to lose time in going to the Court, is he going to get no compensation when his certificate has been unreasonably withheld? That is the first point—the loss of time involved in attending the Court, and other matters. That may be dealt with in that way. Then I want to raise an even wider question. I want to ask the Minister of Munitions whether under any circumstances a worker is going to leave his or her employment and apply to the Court to sustain the position that the employer has unreasonably withheld his certificate? I want to put a concrete case. Quite recently a number of women workers not far from London were subjected to intolerable and indecent insult on the part of the foreman. Those women left their work. If I were to tell the Committee of those insults, there is no Member here who would not say that, law or no law, they were perfectly justified in leaving their employment. They applied, first of all, to their employer. They told him of the conduct of the night watchman, and said that it was intolerable, and that they could not submit to it. The employer refused to do anything, and told them that we were in a state of War, and all the girls left their work. They afterwards appealed to the Court, who said they were justified in leaving their work, that their certificates had been unreasonably withheld, and granted them leaving certificates, but they had to wait a week before they received those certificates. They lost £l in wages, and it cost each girl 2s. 6d. to attend the Court. Therefore there is far more in this Amendment than the Minister of Munitions apparently realises. I suggest that he should either accept the Amendment now, or between now and the Report stage he ought to see that something is done. There is the safeguard here that if the Court says that the workpeople had no right to leave their work, no question of any expenses or costs will arise. It is only if the Court, with an impartial chairman, says that the circumstances justify the granting of expenses or costs, that it is done. That is a good safeguard, and I hope this Amendment will commend itself to the Minister of Munitions.

I think I can save the time of the Committee. If my hon. Friend had only taken the trouble to read the next Sub-section he would have found that this matter is covered. If the Court decides that a certificate has been unreasonably withheld, it can not merely grant a certificate, but may order the payment to the workman

"by the employer of such sum, not exceeding five pounds, as the tribunal may think fit, unless the tribunal is of opinion that the workman was guilty of misconduct for the purpose of obtaining dismissal or discharge."

That is only if the workman is the defendant, not if he is the plaintiff.

That is not so. The Sub-section says that the Court may

"order the payment to him by the employer of such sum, not exceeding five pounds."

That is only in the case of a workman being dismissed or discharged by the employer. It does not meet my case at all.

No, no!

Well, read it.

( reading ):

"The employer shall forthwith, on his leaving his employment, give him such a certificate as aforesaid, and if he fails to do so a munitions tribunal may, in addition to issuing or ordering the issue to him of such a certificate, order the payment to him by the employer of such sum, not exceeding five pounds."

The case the hon. Member refers to is one of which I have not got the facts, but I will promise to consider a case of that kind, and if the Bill does not cover a case of that kind I will promise to consider it before the Report stage. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me the whole of the facts between now and the Report stage.

I will do so.

There was a case recently of skilled men who were refused discharge-certificates. It took them five weeks to get a decision from the Court, and the Court held that the certificates were unreasonably withheld. My point is one not only of justice to the men, but of the loss of these skilled workers to the country for five weeks. The matter ought to be dealt with quicker, and the Court ought to have had powers to see that that time was not lost.

I think there is some misunderstanding as to the point the right hon. Gentleman has made. As I understand Sub-section (2), the protection which can be given by the Court can only be given if the man has been actually dismissed or discharged. The point raised by my hon. Friend is a case where the person is not dismissed or discharged.

I understand that, and I have promised to consider the case.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

On a point of Order. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider this on Report and bring up a new Clause?

I have promised to consider it.

Is it in order to discuss this matter; have you, Sir, not put the Question?

That is so, but I have allowed the raising of the point because there seemed to be some misunderstanding.

Have you really declared the Amendment accepted or negatived?

It was negatived.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "on his leaving his employment" ["the employer shall forthwith, on his leaving his employment"].

I move this Amendment because these words may be the cause of some misunderstanding.

I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "he" ["and if he fails to do so"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the employer."

This Amendment and the next one—to leave out the word "him," and insert the word "workman"—are really necessary in order to make the matter quite clear.

I think it is perfectly clear that the reference here is made to the employer, and I do not think the Amendment is necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in. Sub-section (2), in the second paragraph, to leave out the words "leaves his employment on the ground that he."

These words are redundant and do not improve the Bill.

I accept the. Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), in the second paragraph, after the word "wages" ["he has been suspended without wages"], to insert the words "or not set continuously to work or otherwise prevented from earning wages."

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there are other methods of depriving a man of his wages besides the direct method of discharge. There is the method of not giving him work, or of giving him only occasional work, and thereby considerably reducing his wages. The words which I propose to insert will improve this particular Sub-section, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept them or words to a similar effect.

This is a very serious Amendment to accept. Sometimes you get failure of a certain material for a. short time, such as metal or some semi-manufactured article which has not been delivered in time, which causes a stoppage of the work for a few hours.

The provision here is for three days.

I know that the Bill refers to three days. There are cases where the men have to stand idle until the work comes in. You may require to have the men standing idle for a short time in order that they should stand-by to meet urgent cases. It would be a very serious thing if there were a sort of suspension of work for a short time and that under those conditions the men should be entitled to their certificate of discharge. It would seriously dislocate the work. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the wages which are fixed have reference very largely to the fact that the work is sporadic. The wages are considerably higher than they would be under other conditions. The Amendment would be a very serious thing for works supplying needs which are absolutely essential, more especially for Admiralty and other war work, where there is a stoppage for a very short time which is not due to the management but rather to the difficulty of getting the material. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

I think there is really more substance in the point than my right hon. Friend is willing to admit. It is necessary to read the Sub-section as it stands. It will apply to a workman who leaves his employment on the ground that he has been suspended without wages for a period of more than three days in like manner as if he had been discharged or dismissed by his employer. The provision as it stands is quite sound, so far as time workers are concerned, because if a man is not given any work and is working on a time basis he cannot be affected at all, but the Amendment endeavours to give the same security to the man who is engaged on piecework as this provision gives to a man who is engaged on time work. The employer may simply not give him a job, and he may have to attend at the works for three days and have nothing to do, and consequently be unable to earn a penny. Should that man not be in the same position as the time worker? I quite agree that if my right hon. Friend was going to reduce the term of three days, there would be some point in resisting this Amendment, but the difficulty is that he is to be kept doing nothing for a period of three days.

If that is all the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to make clear, there is no quarrel between me and him. The only thing I object to would be that unless a firm kept a man continuously working without any interruption, even where there was a slight stoppage for which they were not responsible, the Act would immediately come into operation. That would be fatal to the work which is going on, especially in Admiralty yards. If my hon. Friend only seeks to put the piece worker on the same footing as the other, I will see what can be done in order to make that absolutely clear. But I think he will admit that these "words go very much further that that.

I should be inclined to modify them.

I am prepared to consider the introduction of words making it absolutely clear that the piece worker and the other will be on the same footing.

1.0 P. M.

I do not like this Subsection at all, but I take a different ground from the hon. and learned Gentleman behind me. Under the principal Act the employer has a lien upon a man for a period of six weeks. The man cannot leave his employment during that six weeks. He is absolutely tied to the employer. But here there is a power to suspend the man. That is not equitable. I think when you have a lien upon a man's service you are bound to pay him for the whole period. Consequently I am absolutely opposed to this Sub-section. If a man was free to leave his employment under the old conditions, then there would be something to be said for the position taken up by the Minister of Munitions upon this point, but under the altered circumstances, where a man cannot leave, I think he is entitled to say that employment is to be found for him Otherwise, he should be entitled to his leaving certificate, if he can go across the street and get another job. That is the position I have taken up right along. I made the point on Second Reading, and although we have not an Amendment down, I was in hopes that the Government on their own initiative would have down something to prevent that.

I am sure my hon. Friend cannot object to the Sub-section. It was inserted at the request of the trade union representatives.

I was not there.

Their fear was that employers might get round the defective Clauses of the Munitions Act by suspending them for an unlimited period instead of dismissing them, and this was inserted entirely to protect the men.

I still oppose it.

Our objection is to suspension. An employer can suspend a man for three days every week. The men would not agree to anything of the kind. I am not aware that trade unionists ever asked for anything in this kind of wording. We wanted to get clear the right to prevent our men having to walk about and get no money. We are still trying to meet the difficulty there is in this case, but three days is too long.

That is raising a subsequent Amendment. We had better dispose of this first.

I sincerely hope my right hon. Friend will not listen to the representatives of labour who have last been addressing the House, because from my own personal knowledge there are many workmen who are asking the protection of a Sub-section of this character. I do not quite understand the attitude of my hon. Friends. I hope he will not attempt to leave out the Sub-section at this stage until we have had representations in regard to it.

This Sub-section is intended to prevent evasion under the original Act. Evasions are very frequent, and under the new Clause they will become still more frequent. My desire is that the prevention of evasion should apply equally to the piece-worker and to the time-worker, and as my right hon. Friend has agreed to consider this question I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

If my right hon. Friend promises to give piece-workers the same consideration as time-workers, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "for a period of more than three days."

It is quite obvious that if the Bill passes as it stands it will give far too great powers to inflict penalties without any sort of appeal, and it would be far better that these words should be omitted altogether. If it is said that that will give an opportunity to appeal in case of suspension for only an hour or two, I do not think it would be worth while to bring such a case before the tribunal. But it is quite obvious that if an employer can suspend a workman for a couple of days, or even for one day, very substantial injustice would be inflicted on a worker if he could not appeal to the tribunal.

My right hon. Friend quite realises that the period of three days represents a compromise arrived at. It is pointed out to us that there are cases in which the customs are met by rates of wages. We think three days is a reasonable period, and that it is a fair compromise in this matter. I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied with that, and not press his Amendment.

Is it not possible to omit the three days altogether?

That would be quite-impossible. In many cases the machine for one part of the work has got to a certain stage, and another part is not as far advanced, and the man on a stage ahead has got to wait, perhaps, for a day or a day and a half. It is quite impossible to omit the provision. If the hon. Member will read the Sub-section (2) he will see that where a man in these circumstances-applies to the tribunal for a certificate, they may, in addition to issuing or ordering the issue to him of such a certificate, award him, not merely three days' wages in compensation, but such sum not exceeding £5, to be paid by the employer as the tribunal may think fit, unless the tribunal is of opinion that the workman was guilty of misconduct for the purpose of obtaining dismissal or discharge.

That does not deal with the argument of suspension. The circumstances which the hon. Gentleman has given would not be interpreted by any-reasonable tribunal as suspension.

He is actually suspended.

Can there not be some words inserted to ensure that the three days' suspension shall not be repeated week after week, for that seems to be the danger? There are cases in Scotland, where men have to wait five weeks for their discharge certificates. In cases like that the suspension might be repeated, not for three days, but even two days, week after week. I think some words might be inserted to prevent that and, if so, most of the troubles might be met.

I think there is a good deal to be said for the point put by the hon. Member. It is conceivable that employers might do that, but I am not going to say that an employer would do it. The cases of that kind are very scarce. It is very difficult to find labour. As a matter of fact, the whole question of discharge and dismissal is an academic question at the present time. No employer will discharge men unnecessarily, because it is so difficult to find workmen at the present time. The whole discussion is rather an academic one, but as it will not be impossible for the employer to do that, we will consider whether words can be inserted to prevent a repetition of it.

An HON. MEMBER: Could they not be put on half-pay?

This is an important matter. Take the case of a dry dock. A ship comes in, and the men are employed three days, and then there may be nothing for three days during the week, and the men will only get three days' employment. That is what we are wanting to prevent. If the firm says, "This ship is coming in, and there will be three days' work, but we will have nothing for you for the next few days," and if the men are compelled to wait until the work comes in, they are entitled to some consideration. In ordinary times, the man could take other employment, but now he is not allowed to do so. The real point at issue has not been met. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to see that some words are inserted to meet the grievance of the men in this respect, if they have to stand by.

It seems to me that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) has stated the real point of the discussion, namely, that there has arisen, or there has been imposed upon workmen wholly new relations with their employers. Surely the simple solution of this difficulty is that if it suits the convenience or the interests of the employers under the new system to suspend his workmen for a time, that the workmen should get their pay. The Minister of Munitions said one thing that I confess astounded me. He said that it very frequently happened that in cases of emergency the Admiralty required men to stand by idle, in order that they should be ready immediately to deal with some injured vessel, or some emergency work for the Admiralty. He cannot maintain for a single moment that in a controlled establishment, where the men are deprived of their liberty—for under the powers of this Bill, as applied to them, they cannot seek another job—that the Government should claim the right to hold skilled men in readiness to do work for the Government, and deny them their wages during the hours that they are idle, through no fault of their own, whereas they are ready to work at any moment when they can get the work. The simple solution of this business is that if it suits the convenience or interest of the Government, or the convenience or interest of the employer, to order men to stand idle, ready for work, the men ought to get their wages, when they are ready to work, just as if they were actually working. What injury would that arrangement inflict upon anyone? These are controlled establishments, and they are mostly establishments making large excess profits, but they are not getting these excess profits, because they are coming to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in very large sums, as we were told the other day. In order to save what is a very trifling amount in the aggregate, by the paying of the wages of the men who are standing by, not through their own fault, this difficulty is raised in order to save perhaps a few thousands a year to the Exchequer. The employer would not suffer. The way out of the difficulty is clear, and that is that in cases where men are ordered to stand by, or suspended, and are not paid their wages, that they should be set free to look for another job.

The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking on this subject, mentioned that in steel works men may be hung up because material does not come in. I would point out that in the steel trade, where from any cause work is suspended, the men are paid. The bulk of the men are all paid by piece, but whenever they have to wait for material, or when they have to wait as the result of a breakdown in the machinery, they all go on a standard of time. They say, "We will wait one hour free, but after that, if we have got to wait any longer, then you have got to pay us." I think that is a reasonable thing. If you are to call upon men's services you are entitled to pay them. In the legal profession, when counsel is briefed, he gets his fee for standing by, and if the case never comes on he still gets his retainer. I think the workman is as much entitled to a retainer as a lawyer.

The right hon. Gentleman has tried to meet some of the points put by the trade unionists. The question is that this Sub-section goes too far, and whether it goes further than they desire with regard to protection under the Act. Suspension for three days is a very long period indeed, and with regard to the coining in of material, supposing there is no material in the place—all of us who have worked in shipyards know how long we have had to wait for it—for three days, and you are asking a man to stand-by, would not he, under the ordinary law, apart from this Act and under the ordinary conditions of employer and employed, have a right to seek some other employment in order to earn a livelihood for himself and his family? Under this Act you say he cannot go, and you ask him to remain in his workshop. Having placed him in that position, has not he a right under this Act to meet the requirements of his family? We say that to stand-by for three days waiting for employment without any remuneration is to do so for far too long a period. I should think you could abolish the Sub-section altogether, and leave it for the decision of the Court to decide the conditions under which the man left his employment.

The man would not trust to them.

I do not understand. [An Hon. MEMBER: "He is a lawyer and knows!"] I beg pardon; I have had legal opinion without having to pay for it. I do seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of these three days, which must be most serious to any man suspended in this manner.

I think there is a complete misconception with regard to the character of this Sub-section. If my hon. Friends below the Gangway do not want this Sub-section, I am perfectly prepared to withdraw it if that will save time; it is entirely a matter of time. I inserted this at the request of the representatives of the trade unions entirely. If the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) takes that view, I am quite prepared to withdraw this.

The right hon. Gentleman has no right to put it into my mouth. I never advised or suggested that the Subsection should be withdrawn. I suggested it should be extended and worked properly, in order to secure to men their wages in cases where they were suspended.

That has nothing to do with it, if the hon. Gentleman will read the Sub-section. This is a question entirely of whether, where you dismiss a workman without a certificate, you shall pay him compensation. That is all. That is the Section, and I am coming to the Sub-section later on. The question of the Section is whether, if you discharge a workman or dismiss him, compensation ought to be paid. The workmen said you might get round all that by means of suspension indefinitely, and that that was a dodge to which employers resort. This has nothing to do with any customs of the trade; there is no endeavour to alter the customs of the trade. That is a question which ought to be considered, but it does not arise under this at all. It is a very serious question in trades which are spasmodic trades, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) has pointed out, where men have to stand-by for ships, whether you ought to pay them for the whole of that period. It is raising a very great issue indeed, but it does not arise under this Sub-section. That would have to be decided by arbitration in the ordinary way under Part I. of the Munitions Act. I am not expressing an opinion. It is far too difficult a matter on which to express an opinion without going very carefully indeed into it, and more so than I have had time to do. My hon. Friends who know the conditions in the shipbuilding trade know that it would create a great deal of dislocation. There is a good deal of this trade, where the wages are adapted to that kind of work; they may be particularly high because of the fact that you cannot rely upon having continuous employment on six days of the week. I do not presume to express an opinion upon it without having it thoroughly investigated by the ordinary tribunal. That, however, has nothing whatever to do with it. This is a proviso to prevent the employer from getting round the provision inserted that if he refuses a certificate he will have to pay a penalty of £5. That is a question which stands by itself. Whether suspension ought to be for two days or whether it ought to be for three days is a question I am prepared to consider. I am not wedded to the three days, but it is no use raising issues which are irrelevant. It may be that men ought to be paid for the whole period, but in that case I am not sure the men would thank anybody for their intervention at this point. It is possible that wages are lowered because men are nominally working for six, but really only for three, days a week. I should not like to enter on that, and I think it would be a mistake to do so.

Cannot it be made as in the case where employers pay for the men who have to stand by? We are not wanting to block anything, but wish to assist the right hon. Gentleman. We know there are difficulties. There are two sides to the whole case, because men in repairing work do not want to go to steady work. As it stands now, the man could not get away for six weeks, and that was the reason for the proposals put to him before.

If it meets the views of my hon. Friends, I do not mind it being two days; but do not let us mix up two issues. The issue to which he is referring is a very big one indeed which ought to be considered on its merits, and I do not think this is the opportunity for doing it. The House cannot fix wages of this kind without completely dislocating a trade, and a very important trade indeed; they are two totally different issues. If my hon. Friends were satisfied that it should be two days instead of three; I should he prepared to accept that.

In any one week?

Yes, two days in any one week; two days continuously in any one week.

No, in any one week!

I think this question is of sufficient importance not to be settled by means of a conversation, as it runs the risk of being now. I think my right hon. Friend has, inadvertently, somewhat narrowed the effect of the Sub-section. He says it is only intended to apply to conditions under which compensation will be payable. But there is a much more important provision in this Sub-section, and that is, that it enacts that where an employé is dismissed the employer will give a certificate; and then, in addition to that, it provides for certain penalties in the case of failure. This proviso we have been discussing is an attempt to settle what dismissal is. In fact, the workmen know they may be effectively dismissed, without being dismissed in terms, by indefinite suspension. Consequently, it is extremely important to lay down what amount of suspension is equivalent to dismissal. Undoubtedly, there are many trades in which it would be most undesirable and inadvisable to put a limit on suspension or dismissal, such as the shipbuilding industry. To meet this case, however, cannot we put in a provision safeguarding the custom of a particular trade. If the right hon. Gentleman puts in a proviso of that kind and then did away with the limitation of suspension altogether, I am quite sure he would meet the desires of all those interested.

Another small point arises owing to the omission of the words "the employer shall forthwith give him such certificate." Therefore the employer might suspend a man for three days without giving him a certificate, which makes the Sub-section very much more far-reaching than it was.

There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend has said, and I will consider the matter when we are dealing with what are really the established customs of the trade over a very long period. Up to the present these customs have not been challenged, though there might be disputes about wages. I should like, before I do anything in regard to the customs and habits of any trade in this country, a little time in which to consider the whole subject. I am not at all sure that the proviso at the end of Sub-section (3) does not provide a way out of the difficulty. I will, however, consider the question between now and the Report stage.

The trade which I represent has no such customs, and as I have already pointed out, the man who stands by cannot earn the usual piece prices. They are paid on a different basis. I think it quite necessary that trades should be protected, and personally I am satisfied with the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given to consider this matter between now and the Report stage, so that such trades as are concerned may have the necessary protection.

If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to give consideration to the matter on Report there must be some period, whether it is two days or three days. The only objection appears to be whether it will not be exercised in a bonâ-fide manner, and that a man may be practically discharged by suspending him from time to time. That being so, per- haps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the insertion of the words "or if any suspension is not bonâ fide or without just or reasonable cause." That would give a man a right to his wages during the whole time he is suspended. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider that on Report.

I understand that the Minister of Munitions accepts two days in place of three days, subject to his further consideration of the matter as to customs.

I am prepared to do that unless there is nothing very much better to propose, but I hope I will be allowed time to consider the whole question.

In the meantime the right hon. Gentleman will substitute two for three days?

Yes.

I beg, then, to move to leave out the word "three" and to insert the word "two."

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, after the word last inserted, to insert the words "in any one week."

I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, as I understand that the effect of it might be very serious in some cases. For the moment I will not express any opinion upon it, and I trust I may be allowed to consider the matter as a whole.

Without an Amendment of this kind, an employer might cause a man to work on the Monday and on the Wednesday, and suspend him on the Thursday, and work him on Friday instead of Saturday. Surely we ought to protect the wage earner against suspensions of that kind.

Of course it must be consecutive days. I think there can be no doubt about that at all.

I take it that Thursday and Friday, so far as wages are concerned, are just as of much value to the workman as Tuesday and Wednesday in any one week?

Certainly, and I promise to consider the whole question, but I do not think that I ought to be asked to consider it piecemeal.

While considering this question, the right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, evolve some method which will be equitable to both sides.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words, "Any sum ordered to be paid by an employer to a workman under the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall be a civil debt recoverable summarily."

I accept that.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "notice" ["week's notice in writing"], to leave out the words "in writing."

I have a communication from the Employers' Federation suggesting that these words should be left out, as they involve difficulty, and are a departure from the usual custom.

I accept.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "within" ["within twenty-four hours"], to leave out the words "twenty-four," and to insert instead thereof the words "forty-eight."

The Sub-section reads, "the employer shall … within twenty-four hours of giving notice of dismissal to the workmen report the matter in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made by the Minister of Munitions." I understand that the Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions has seisin of this Amendment.

I think the hon. Gentleman ought to be satisfied with the Amendment I have just accepted. If they dismiss a workman, they ought to give notice on the first day.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "provide" ["rules shall provide"], to insert the words "amongst other things."

This will make it clear that in drawing up rules on one point they can include these rules also, and it will also make clear that there must be separate rules on this point.

I think my hon. Friend will find that these words are unnecessary, as the matter is provided for in the general rules.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "the circumstances of the employment or."

We believe that these words are redundant and will cause bad feeling amongst the workmen.

I think there is very good reason for this Amendment. We have got to remember once more that under the Munitions Act a workman is not free to leave his employment under penalty of six weeks' enforced idleness unless he gets the special permission of the employer. If a penalty is going to be imposed on the workman there ought to be —using that blessed word that has been heard a great deal in these Debates—some reciprocity in the matter. What is put in here is that under the terms of this Section each workman shall be entitled to a week's notice unless he is guilty of personal misconduct, and there is a qualification put in here, probably by the officials, which says that he shall not be entitled to a week's notice if it can be shown that there has been "some circumstance of the employment." We feel they are altogether too wide, and would cover any dismissal of workmen. If these words are inserted I cannot conceive a case where the employer could not argue in Court that there were circumstances of the employment which made it impossible for him to give a week's notice, and that therefore he was not liable. I think these words ought to be deleted, because it will still remain that if the workman is guilty of misconduct he will not be entitled to a week's wages in lieu of notice.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. There are many cases of a diverse complex character under which the work is done by the job partly and partly by the piece, and where you might cause a serious dislocation.

Here we have a repetition of what took place on a previous Clause. It is perfectly true that these words may be essential in certain trades, but they are not necessary generally, and would bring in the greater number of trades where the circumstances would not warrant the retention of the words in the Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to put in qualifying words so that it would not affect any trade where those special circumstances do not occur, I think that would meet the point.

I do not quite see why these words are necessary at all. There is a proviso which seems to be in the widest terms. The proviso ensures that in properly considered cases where a difficulty arises that difficulty is met. Therefore I do not see the necessity for those very wide words.

It would be perfectly fatal in certain trades if you insisted on a week's notice, and would alter the whole character of the trade. What we really want is to prevent the employer dismissing a workman without any sort of notice when he knows perfectly well in advance that there is no more work for him. As to these words, I would ask for time to consider them between now and the Report stage.

I think we may be satisfied with the undertaking just given, but if it is thought desirable to have some provision here I think the words used are much too wide for the purpose.

I am rather inclined to agree.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "the employer had," and to insert instead thereof the words "there was."

I think this ought to be accepted.

It is unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words,

"Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall apply to workmen engaged in ship repairing, or to any class of workmen exempted in the prescribed manner on the ground that the circumstances of their employment were such that the provisions of this Sub-section ought not to apply to them."

I put down this Amendment with a view to finding out what the Clause really means. The previous discussion has to a large extent explained the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to delete these words at once, I hope he will see both the ship repairers and the new shipbuilders, between whom there is a considerable difference, on the matter. We want a consultation so that we may get a Clause equitable to both the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves.

I think my hon. Friend and I are very much of the same mind on this matter. We do not want to interfere with the usual custom of the trade; at the same time we do not want to go beyond that. Between now and the Report stage perhaps my hon. Friend will come and talk to me on the subject, and if he thinks the words go beyond the custom of the trade I shall be glad to introduce words confining the provision to the practice of his trade as it exists now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "ship repairing," and to insert instead thereof the words "repairing of ships or vessels."

What is the difference?

In Clause 6 the Bill refers to ships and vessels. Here it says only ships. There must be some hidden meaning.

This Amendment is quite unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "consideration," to insert the words,

"any complaints either by the employer or the workman in connection with the case as to whether the workman has been offered or paid less than the standard rate of wages and allowances, or has been required to work under other than the standard conditions of employment according to the contract of service into which he has entered; or has been reduced in status so as substantially to reduce his earnings, or whether the employer has refused or failed to pay him at least the amount of the standard time wages during the whole period of his employment whether or not he has been set continuously to work; or"

The Clause deals with those things which are going to modify the rigidity of the leaving certificate. The Court, in deciding whether a man is entitled to a leaving certificate, is to take certain things into consideration—amongst others, whether the man is going to leave his work for the purpose of undertaking any class of work in which his skill or other personal qualifications can be employed to greater advan- tage to the national interests. I want at least two other matters to be taken into account. There have been cases before the Courts where workmen could show that they were not receiving the standard rate of wages and they wished to go to other shops where they could get it. We have had the chairman of these tribunals saying in so many words that they were not there for the purpose of dealing with tinkering questions of wages, and they have dismissed the cases on the ground that they were not concerned whether men were getting the standard rate of wages or not. If a man is to be kept in one establishment by the Munitions Act he ought either to get the standard rate of wages where he is or to be free to go to another place where he can get it. That is so entirely reasonable a contention that I cannot imagine anyone resisting it. The second point is that the Court should take into account whether a man has been reduced in status so as to interfere seriously with his earnings. We have had case after case where a workman has been asked to undertake another form of work with the result that his wages have been reduced by 30 or 40 per cent. The Court ought to take that into account, and such a man ought to be free to go where he could earn his full wages. The failure to observe these conditions has led to a great deal of friction and bitterness. If the Minister of Munitions wants to modify the Act with a view to getting a larger amount of good-will, I think these conditions are absolutely essential.

There is a good deal to be said for this Amendment, and I have considered it very carefully. I think, however, my hon. Friend's object would be much better served by the insertion of the words standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) and two of his colleagues—[at the end of the Sub-section to add the words "and whether the employer has failed to observe the conditions laid down in any Fair-Wages Resolution now in operation passed by Parliament."] There you have a definite practical standard which has been operating for years, and which the Courts would have much less difficulty in interpreting. It would be a very difficult matter if you gave a general direction of this kind. They would have to consider each individual case on its merits, whether the wages were high or whether they were low, instead of accepting a standard which is thoroughly well known and has been working for years, on the whole, quite satisfactorily. Therefore, if my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, I propose to accept the later Amendment to which I have referred.

The acceptance of the later Amendment does not quite cover the case of a workman who has been reduced in status. Something ought to be done to protect him.

Sub-section (5) meets that.

I doubt it. We want to have it made quite clear. Every day the members of the party with which I am associated are getting letters complaining of the non-observance of the Fair- Wages Clause, and the classification of men in a lower standard than that in which they ought to be classified. We want to safeguard the men. The employers are taking (advantage of an Act of Parliament. Unless we have the sympathy of Parliament and the Minister of Munitions in this matter the men will not have confidence in the Act, and they will be constantly appealing to the tribunals.

I do not think that the offer of the right hon. Gentleman at all meets the case. I desire to call to his memory the case that he himself mentioned to-day. He and I dealt with it. He stated that where representations had been made directly to him he had given the men compensation. In a certain large armament works the men were refused permission to go to another armament works where their services would have been utilised for the national benefit. The permission was refused because the firm anticipated getting a large Admiralty order. Consequently they retained the men, and as soon as the Admiralty order was completed the men—the number was 151—were dismissed on the spot. When they went for their wages on the Saturday there was written across their pay-cheque the words that their services were no longer required. The object of the firm was to force these men, in their employ, into another department where the wages were less. That was manifestly unfair to the men. It is to make impossible a circumstance such as that that the Amendment moved by my colleague the hon. Member for Attercliffe has been put on the Paper. The Fair-Wages Clause does not cover such a case as I have indicated. There are many others. But what I have given is simply a typical instance of how workmen are dealt with, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the position, so that in circumstances such as I have narrated protection may be given to the workmen.

2.0 P.M.

I think my hon. Friend will see that the words we have inserted in Sub-section (5) covers a case of the kind he has given. If it is in the national interests that a man's skill or personal qualifications should be employed in a trade or business, that point will be considered by the tribunal. But there is a case of the kind where it would be very risky to insert the words proposed by my hon. Friend. Anyone who knows the working of some of these establishments knows how thoroughly well-recognised is the custom in the trade, that a man may be employed for a certain time upon fairly-high-class work, and that there may be another kind of work which is not of the same character, but which is quite as essential to the continuation of the general operation. Sometimes a man is taken from the high-class work to carry out the secondary operations. The work is of an inferior character, the wages are lower, but it is quite essential that the same men should be employed. You cannot employ different men for both as it would completely disorganise the work. The wages, however, equalise themselves over a month's work. If the words proposed by my hon. Friend were inserted, it would be quite impossible to get the men. When the time arrived for them to be transferred from the superior to the inferior work, there would be the risk of their having gone to some other yard where they were continuing the superior operations. That would be very dangerous. Therefore it is essential that the words of Sub-section (5) should remain, which ensure that the man's labour shall be employed with the greatest advantage to the national interest. As my hon. Friend knows, and as my hon. Friend the Undersecretary pointed out the other day, there are interests to be considered, not altogether the interests of the workmen, not altogether the interests of the employer, and that is the interests of the State.

The words you have quoted would still remain in the Subsection.

Then the others are quite unnecessary, because the tribunal can consider the interests of the State which must be supreme. If the employer considers any other interest than the national interest the tribunal can operate. I think the words of the Amendment quite unnecessary. I think I have very fairly met my hon. Friends.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman meets the point. We appreciate the point that in a certain department a man may be daily or weekly removed from machine to machine—it may be to an inferior machine, and back again. But the right hon. Gentleman has failed to appreciate our point: where men are removed to a different department entirely. The case I mentioned was connected with the armour-plating department. The desire was that by dismissing the men the firm would force them into the shell department, where the wages were lower. The certificates were refused them, whereas if the men had got the certificates they could have gone to other work, where they would have maintained their status. My point is that, if the men are forced by such methods into a department where the wages are inferior, they ought to carry the wages of the superior department, otherwise the men ought to be given their discharge certificates.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in Subsection (5), after the word "of" ["for the purpose of undertaking"], to insert the words "accepting a situation as foreman or."

This is to make it quite clear that the case where the workman wishes to leave in order to become a foreman is included. As the Bill stands the wording is a little uncertain. If there is any doubt as to the legal position perhaps my words will be accepted?

Such a case would come under the definition as to where a man's skill could be used to greater advantage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to add at end the words, "and whether the employer has failed to observe the conditions laid down in any Fair-Wages Resolution now in operation passed by Parliament."

I move my Amendment without any observations as it has been accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Subsection (5), after the words last inserted, to add the words "and whether the workmen has left or desires to leave his work because he has recently completed a term of apprenticeship or period of learning his trade or occupation and desires to obtain the full standard rate of wages applicable to fully qualified workmen in his trade or occupation."

I accept that Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (6), to insert the words,

"A certificate granted by an employer under Section seven of the principal Act, as amended by this Section, shall not contain any other matter, and shall not be expressed, written, typewritten, or printed in such a way as to convey any other information or opinion beyond what is required by the said Section as amended by this Section."

The substance of this Amendment is of very great importance in safeguarding the interests of the workers. If no such words are inserted, the certificate might be used for conveying information to the disadvantage of the workman, and it is very important that his rights should be safeguarded against any such abuse. Even if the Minister of Munitions considers such abuse is not likely to occur, I think he will admit that the fear is there, and it is a very real thing.

I am advised that the object of my hon. Friend is covered by paragraph ( c. ).

It is not quite covered.

We can give an assurance that under paragraph ( c ) the rules will be made to prevent a clearance certificate being used for the purpose indicated by my hon. Friend.

I must accept that assurance, but I should very much have preferred more definite words put in the Bill. I hope it is possible that at least I may have some assurance that the words of the Bill may be strengthened in some way on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I beg to move to leave out Clause 4.

I have put down this Amendment, not because I object to the relaxations contained in it, but because I object to the whole of the original Section in the principal Act, and I may point out for the benefit of the few Members present that there is a new Clause standing in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for the College Division (Mr. Watt) proposing to repeal Section 7 of the principal Act. I think that that Section has already no friends. I am sorry the Minister for Munitions is not here, as I believe he is the sole begetter of the Section. Certain exception has been taken to words which were used by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Munitions Department—perhaps I ought to say the Civil Parliamentary Secretary, because there is a Military Parliamentary Secretary, and it is always well to be correct in nomenclature. Certain exception, I say, was taken by two of the employers' federations to words which he used on the Second Reading. On that occasion he said:— result, employers were willing to give any wage practically, so long as they could get workmen, and give delivery to the Government. That condition has very largely changed in the intervening months, and I therefore suggest that, as the temporary conditions which made the Section necessary and desirable in the original Act have now passed away, the time has come to reconsider the question more fully, and that, instead of this long Clause in the present Bill introducing all sorts of exceptions and relaxations, many of which it is extremely difficult for the workmen to understand, and which will be almost equally difficult for the tribunal —instead of all that, I say, we should take the simple, straightforward, and honest course, and dispense with the Section altogether. We know the irritation which has been caused by the administration of the special provisions; we know the numerous cases which have been taken to tribunals, the great majority of which have been a cause of annoyance and irritation as between employers and employed; and we may be sure that, for every case which has come before a tribunal, there have been hundreds of cases which have not gone to a tribunal, but which, however, have been as fruitful of annoyance as cases actually tried.

We have had the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Macassey, and one-third of it deals with the grievances in regard to these subjects. You have a whole page of suggestions for amendment. I agree that the Clause we are now discussing embodies a large number of these suggestions and modifications, but the discussions we have had to-day have proved how difficult it is, by amendment, to meet entirely the case which has been brought before the Minister, and which the Committee is now considering. The very fact that your Commissioners have had to dwell upon such a large number of points of dissatisfaction is, I think, conclusive evidence of the practical futility and the undesirability of continuing the arrangement. You have (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), and so on down to (m), of cases suggesting change and modification. Some of them are not embodied in the measure, I suppose, on account of practical or drafting difficulties. But the very fact that there are at least half a dozen of the recommendations of this Committee which, for some reason or other, cannot be dealt with, is, I think, an additional support to the argument which I am now submitting to the Committee. After all, is there any real reason now for suggesting that there will be illegitimate competition among the employers for the services of workmen? I think that there may be a certain amount of competition, but I am talking about illegitimate competition—competition which is going to be contrary to the national interests. I think that a case should be clearly made out that there is competition which is contrary to the national interests now at this time, when we are passing this Amending Bill. If there is no case made out that such illegitimate competition continues at the present time, then, I think, the simple course is to abandon this Section altogether. Let us get rid of it. The whole atmosphere, particularly on the Clyde district, of the relations between employers and employed has been very largely poisoned by the necessity of these clearance certificates. In Scotland, at any rate, there is a long tradition in this respect, and the Scottish workmen resent bitterly the smallest infraction of the liberty which they prize so much. I am talking of the Scottish working man, and I think he is even more touchy on these questions than the English working man. The difficulty is due to the resentment caused by the feeling that a man should be able to go with his labour to any employer whom he chooses to select. There are numerous cases where men, for health reasons, desire to remove from one place to another, and in many cases even the medical certificate has not been accepted. We have found cases in which one tribunal would accept a certificate and another would not, and consequently the workman does not know whether he will be successful or not if he goes to the tribunal. It all depends upon the tribunal. There are cases where men have to travel long distances to their employment when they might be employed at their very door. If a man has to travel half an hour, or three-quarters of an hour, night and morning, he is reducing his industrial efficiency, and yet tribunals have refused the right of transfer when a man is merely seeking to change his employment from a place which is two, three, or four miles from his home to a place which is practically in his own district. I know some of these points are dealt with in the Bill, and attempts are made to deal with others, but they are not quite adequate, and I know there are a number of difficulties which you cannot deal with. In view of the irritation which has been caused by this, and the necessity of improving the relations between employers and employed, and the fact that by getting rid of this Clause you will improve the efficiency of the workmen and increase production, I move the omission of this Clause.

My hon. Friend has stated his objections to this Clause, but I think he must recognise that if it were omitted there would be no value in the, Bill at all. We have adopted a number of provisions to make the Munitions Act work more smoothly, and I do not understand by what process of logic my hon. Friend proposes to prevent the operation of Section 7 by omitting this Clause. I know he says his general object is to get rid of Section 7 altogether. Clause 4 would apply with greater force to Section 7 in the original Act, which contains some of the most important parts of the Act, and if that Section were omitted it would mean that the Munitions Act would be a dead letter. The House has, however, adopted the Munitions Act, and it is our business to administer it as well as we can. I agree that the employers' representatives certainly take no responsibility for what is put into the Bill, but we were not pressed to rescind the principles of the original Act with any considerable pressure. The whole responsibility for what is in the Bill rests mainly and solely on the Government.

Were the employers consulted?

Certainly they were, and a considerable number of alterations were introduced in view of the representations made by the employers. I know there has been a good deal of irritation, and in consequence of that irritation this amended Bill has been introduced. I do not think we shall allay that irritation by taking away what we are proposing to remedy it. The fundamental point of my hon. Friend is that he asks what is the evidence that there is a competition amongst employers to obtain labour. The fact is that competition cannot make itself felt because of the operation of the Munitions Act, which prevents competition. Only yesterday I heard of a case where a number of employers were so hard up for workmen that they have commercial travellers going about to obtain men because they have machines standing idle, and it is only natural that they should want to get labour. But what we resent is such a competition as will not be in the interests of the State, and if we were to remove these safeguards contained in this Clause the object of the Munitions Act would be defeated. Therefore I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division.

My hon. Friend's speech has not really traversed any of the arguments I have put forward. In the main he has pointed out the effect of omitting this Clause in itself rather than dealing with the merits of the question at issue between the Ministry of Munitions and myself. I would point out that the whole contention of the Government regarding the necessity of restriction is very much modified now because of these relaxations. I am quite prepared to say that by the relaxations now introduced any man who likes can go into some other employment, and any employer who wants a workman can get one out of another employer's establishment. I believe it is possible, under the Clause as it now stands, to drive a coach and horse through Section 7. People who want to evade the law can evade it, but there are a certain number of honest people in the country who do not like evading honest law, and they are the people who will suffer. People who like the practice of driving coaches and horses through Acts of Parliament will not be affected. You have really made your original provision ineffective. I hope the Minister of Munitions will still reconsider it before we part with the Bill. Would it not be better to abandon it altogether, and be honest?

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Bates of Wages of Women Employed on Munitions Work.)

Where women are employed on or in connection with munitions work in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of Section seven of the principal Act are for the time being applied by an order made thereunder, the Minister of Munitions shall have power to require the owner of the establishment to comply with any directions given to him by the Minister as to the rate of wages or conditions of employment of the women so employed, and if the owner of the establishment, or any contractor or sub-contractor employing labour therein, fails to comply with any such directions, he shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a fine not exceeding one pound in respect of each woman for each day on which the offence 'is continued after conviction therefor.

I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words, "Without prejudice and in addition to the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and of the Employment of Children Act, 1903."

We now come to a really very important Clause, and one which merits some attention and discussion. It is certainly not a Clause which should be passed over without some consideration. Does the Factory and Workshop Act and the Employment of Children Act apply? Of course, in these times, we are willing to let many statutory rights and rights of the people—political, social, and industrial—be modified, but I am strongly of opinion, in connection with the employment of women, and in view of all that women stand for, not only physically and socially, but also industrially and in regard to the future of the country, that we ought to be more careful how we infringe upon the Factory Acts 'and conditions of labour than we ought in regard to men. It is in that spirit I move the Amendment, which says that the Clause shall be without prejudice and in addition to the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act and the Employment of Children Act. I shall not withdraw this Amendment or cease to believe it entirely right until I get a definite statement—

That it is without prejudice?

I will not say "that it is without prejudice," but how the Government are proceeding, what is their policy, and how the matter stands. I want a definite statement as to the policy and intention of the Government, and as to what is the position legally. There is no legal Gentleman on the Front Bench, and I am as able to interpret a legal question as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, though I shall be very glad to have his opinion for whatever it is worth. I hope that we shall have a definite statement from the Front Bench as to how this matter stands.

It is quite true that the Attorney-General is not here, but we have the statement of my right hon. Friend on the first Amendment today—to begin Clause 1 by the words, "Without prejudice and in addition to the provisions of Section four of the Munitions of War Act, 1915 "—that it was quite unnecessary, and the same would apply here. This is quite an unnecessary Amendment.

That is to say that the principle or the sense of it is accepted, even although the words are unnecessary?

The words are unnecessary.

Having got that statement, which is a little better and more generous and straightforward than I expected, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move to leave out the word "women" ["where women are employed "], and to insert instead thereof the words "female workers."

We accept the Amendment.

Question, "That the word 'women' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Words "female workers" there inserted in the Bill.

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "or semi-skilled or unskilled men."

I am quite satisfied with the Amendment that has just been accepted. The term "women," according to the factory laws, means a person over eighteen years of age. We are now bringing in girls under that age, and we ask that the same protection should apply to various classes of semi-skilled and unskilled men. The Ministry of Munitions has undoubtedly a responsibility towards large numbers of semi-skilled and unskilled men, who are introduced into these factories under circumstances that make the maintenance of standards of wages and so on very difficult. We therefore ask that the same protection shall apply to semi-skilled and unskilled men as applies to the female workers, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

I am sure my hon. Friend knows well that entirely apart from the protection which we agreed with the chosen representatives, and which are embodied in Schedule II. of the principal Act, he would now invite us to regulate the wages of skilled and semi-skilled men, entirely apart from any addition to the protection already provided under the principal Act, which would mean that the Ministry of Munitions would be overwhelmed with a mass of work for which the principal Act really already provides quite competent machinery. In the case of women, referred to in this Section, it is quite different. They are brought in to do work of this special kind. There are no fair-wage standards in the different districts, because the work was never done before. You cannot take as a standard the wages that were paid by employers, because there were no employers of this kind of work, and therefore there is no standard to apply in the case of female workers, and we have to use as a criterion what we should apply arbitration to, and therefore we have to take these novel powers which are proposed in the Clause. But the protection afforded to men doing munition work under the principal Act I am quite sure covers every case I have ever heard of. I have never heard of a case myself which it does not fairly cover, and I think that the wages which are now being earned in munition works by semi-skilled and unskilled men are an adequate and ample justification of what I am saying. I think it would be very difficult for the hon. Member to bring to our notice a case of semi-skilled men doing munition work where they are not earning substantially larger wages than before. For that reason, that this Amendment would break down the work of the Ministry of Munitions, I hope sincerely that the hon. Member will not press it.

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is conjuring up work that really will not arise. The point of the Amendment is not for controlled establishments so much as it is for outsiders who are making munitions, sub-contracting, where there is extreme difficulty in getting them to pay the proper standard of wages. Now what is it that we ask for? Not that the Ministry of Munitions has to go from place to place inquiring what the wages are, not that they should send out circulars asking what wages are, but that they should inquire of the employer. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham is not here to-day—he is engaged on other important business—for he has a great number of cases, and if the Ministry of Munitions had the power all they would be required to do would be to find out from the employers if the representations made with regard to particular instances were correct, and the Department then, knowing what the standard rate for a particular district is, would say to the employer, "You must pay these rates." At any rate, there is not any doubt of the fact that the work with which the Depart-men would be burdened as a consequence of this Amendment is not what the hon. Gentleman assumes, and I do hope that he will accept the inclusion proposed.

I wish to add a word on this Amendment, and I think I can give a very good reason why, even after the answer that has been given by the Minister in charge of the Bill, this Amendment should be inserted. I do not quite know what is the main reason controlling the wages of women. We have had one reason given that the payments made to women vary to such an extent that it is impossible to find any given standard to guide those who were fixing the rate of wages and who were responsible for them. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is in existence what is called a Labour Supply Committee, and that they have fixed upon certain rates of wages that should be payable to women employed in munition factories under certain conditions. Now these were only recommendations. I am not quite sure, but I am inclined to think, that the taking powers on this question under the present Bill is to enable the Minister of Munitions to compel employers of labour to pay to women those rates which have been laid down by the Labour Supply Committee.

That circular only applies to work which women were at, which was previously done by men.

Yes, I am quite aware of the point the hon. Gentleman raises, but he will at any rate admit this, that that involves a principle, and that is the only point I am endeavouring to lay before him. Now that fact, at any rate, having been established, I want to go a step further and to say this, that practically under the Munitions Act there is another point which is dealt with in connection with wages, and which not only covers women and unskilled men, but it practically covers all skilled men, and that is the guarantee that there shall be no change in the piece prices in existence. What does that mean? It simply means this, that as far as the wages of all these men—and there are tens of thousands of them—who are on piece work, their wages are guaranteed. They are not women, they are men; so that the principle is extended far beyond what the hon. Gentleman imagines. Now, with regard to the circular which has been issued by the Labour Supply Committee; this lays down certain rates of wages for men. These rates are simply recommendations from the Labour Supply Committee, and we are face to face with this, that some employers can put these recommendations into operation, others need not; unless you take powers in this Bill to compel them to do so. You will be regulating the wages of the men as well as the women, and therefore it seems to me that what I have said establishes an unanswerable case. I cannot see how Ministers can refuse to insert these words, because in principle they have admitted it and in operation it has extended over the cases of tens of thousands of men already.

My hon. Friend is really making a point against us unnecessarily. Not a single case which he mentioned or suggested has failed to be covered by the principal Act in the case of men. They are covered by references to arbitration for dealing with trade differences of this kind, under Part I. and the provisions of Schedule II. Machinery is at the disposal of the Minister of Munitions to deal with a special case. In the case of the women referred to, there are no precedents and no standards, and the principal Act does not apply. That is the reason why they are brought in here.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

I beg to move to leave out the words "or in connection with" ["where women are employed on or in connection with munitions work"].

The Clause provides that where women are employed on or in connection with munitions work in any controlled establishment, then the Minister of Munitions is to have unrestricted power to make directions as to the rate of wages or conditions of employment in addition to the law as laid down in various Factory Acts. My complaint is that these words are too general, indeed, they are too sweeping and too vague. Take the case where, in a munitions factory which is a controlled establishment, 10 per cent. of the women are controlled and 90 per cent. are not. A struggle will go on, of which the employer would be the victim, between the 90 per cent. who say that they are employed in connection with munitions work and the employer. The hon. Gentleman has already had some communication with the Federation of Employers upon this matter, and I understood that he was favourably disposed to this Amendment. I can quite conceive that unless this Amendment is carried the typist who writes a letter to the Minister of Munitions to say that shells are ready will say that she is employed on munitions work, and her rate of wages and her conditions of employment will be fixed by the Minister of Munitions, although, as a matter of fact, she has nothing whatever to do with the production of any munitions of any kind.

It is exceedingly difficult to follow manuscript Amendments of this character. If I gathered it rightly, the intention of the Amendment is to give the Minister of Munitions unrestricted power to fix wages. If that be so, we on this side will give it most determined opposition. That is a condition of things which would be intolerable, and so far as we are. concerned we will not entertain it.

It is exactly the opposite.

The omission of these words would be a very serious matter. On Clause 3, at the suggestion of an hon. Member opposite, these particular words were inserted in two places in order to bring the Bill into line all the way through. If we take them out now we shall spoil the whole effect of the Amendments we have already accepted.

The Committee may rest assured that the Government will not accept any Amendment which in any way diminishes the protection which it is contemplated should be given under the provisions of Clause 5; therefore it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend. But to do justice to my hon. Friend, I do not think his object was to make a considerable inroad upon the protection which the Clause secures to women. Probably his intention was—he is very skilful in construing legal decisions—to call attention to the considerable vagueness of the expression

"where women are employed on or in connection with munitions work."

Probably his apprehension was that the provisions and machinery of this Bill, which are of course onerous to all parties, might be extended to cases where the employment of women was in the nature of casual labour. I think my hon. Friend is prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I would only make the observation that between now and the Report stage the Government will consider the matter, but they are determined there shall not be the slightest diminution of protection given to women.

Upon the assurance of the Attorney-General that the words will be introduced on Report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Considered."]—will be considered before Report—I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, after the word "work" ["employed on or in connection with munitions work"], to insert in the Bill the words" whether such as is customarily done by men or no."

This Amendment has been put down at the request of certain women's associations who are very anxious to get it laid down in this Bill in the words I have mentioned, or to obtain some definite statement from the Government as to exactly what the action will be in carrying out the powers given under this Clause. It is not necessary for me to argue at any length the necessity for the Clause. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading dealt admirably with the position of women. At the present moment, although I have no doubt that a very large number of women are earning very good wages, there is also a very large number of women who are working for very long hours in connection with munitions work—seventy, eighty and ninety hours a week—and who are earning wages which work out at l½d., 2d. and 2½d. an hour. I anticipate that this Clause is intended to remedy that. The anxiety which is felt in regard to the effect of this Clause arises from the fact that, according to the circular that was sent round by the Minister of Munitions dealing with the question of wages of women at present, the protection that was afforded was only afforded to women doing work customarily done by men. I think those are the very words which were used.

That, of course, had two results. It left out of consideration altogether the rates of wages women who were doing work which was formerly acknowledged as women's work, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that, in carrying out their powers under this Clause, protection will be given to women who are doing what may be called women's work in connection with munitions, so that they will not be overworked or compelled, as they are, to stay six weeks in the employment for very long hours at a very low rate of wages. The second result has been that it has given a great opportunity to employers to evade the responsibility which they otherwise would be under of maintaining the rate of wages paid to the women, by reason of the uncertainty, especially in connection with the new munition work, that exists as to what is work which was customarily done by men, and the tendency, of course, naturally will be to argue that the women would be excluded from the benefit which was intended to be given to them by the circular issued by the Ministry of Munitions. Of course, if it could be understood, either by the inclusion of these words in the Clause, or if the Government hesitate to accept them, by the announcement of the Minister in charge of the Bill, that that limitation of work customarily done by women, or the exclusion of work that has been customarily done by men would not limit the operation of this Clause and the efforts made by the Government under it, that is what those for whom I am speaking desire to have, as distinctly and definitely as possible. In my opinion the inclusion of the words would make it certain, and I should like the Government to accept them; but if that is not possible, I hope they will give such an assurance that there will be no doubt in the minds of women that this very large number of very small wage earners will be fully protected when this Clause comes into operation.

My hon. Friend has fixed on a point of merit, and if the Clause as it stands at present will not secure the purpose which instigated his Amendment, I agree with him it is right that it should be amended in order to carry out this object. But there is no ground for apprehension. The Clause is drafted in very general language. When similar provisions have been used in the Factories Acts no question has ever arisen.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move to leave out the words "in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of Section seven of the principal Act are for the time being applied by an order made thereunder."

I move this Amendment in order that the provisions of the Clause may be extended to cover other classes of munition work than that done in the works dealt with under Section 7 of the principal Act. I do not think it necessary to inform the Committee of the very serious labour conditions under which many women workers are working at present. I know they have engaged the anxious attention of the Minister of Munitions, and this Clause is intended to deal with cases that come under Clause 7, but a very large number of serious cases come under other works, which will not be dealt with by Section 7—smaller works it may be, but works which all the more require to be brought under the provisions of this Clause in order to protect the health and the interests of a section of the workers who are least able to help themselves. I very much hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to accept the suggestion I have made and extend the protection that this Clause gives to all women workers who are engaged in munition work. It is of very great importance to the whole community that these women should not be allowed to work under utterly unhealthy conditions, and sometimes at very unsuitable rates of pay.

3.0 P.M.

I think that the provisions of the Clause as they stand really cover the case the hon. Member has in mind, with this exception, that there would be, and are, as we know, cases where work is taken in by sub-contract, which may last perhaps a month, in a shop which is normally employed on some other work. These establishments are not made controlled establishments, and in many cases the work is in and out. I do not think my hon. Friend contemplates that my right hon. Friend should add to the list of controlled establishments places where work of any sort of kind is done. It would make our work really quite impossible. Where practically the whole of the work is munition work, they will come under the provisions of this Clause all right. The extension proposed by the hon. Member, which would certainly be held to apply to shops where there might only be a short subcontract, would mean that we should really be regulating the wages of practically all the women engaged in the industries of the country. We do not want to be committed to an undertaking, which does not properly belong to the Ministry of Munitions, of determining the wages and conditions of employment of women in all manner of industries only incidentally and for a short time connected with munitions. That would be impossible. As the Debate proceeds, I am more and more impressed with the fact that hon. Members are only too anxious gradually to extend it to every section of the community. That would make it quite impossible to carry on the work. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move after the word "Act" ["Section seven of the principal Act"], to insert the words "as amended by this Act."

I accept that Amendment.