HC Deb 14 June 1939 vol 348 cc1360-70

5.21p.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, in page 65, line 35, at the end, to insert: (a) no building wholly or mainly occupied as a hotel or restaurant shall be deemed to form part of any factory premises. It will be noticed that the definition of "commercial building" already adopted in the Committee stage excludes any part occupied as a hotel or restaurant. It has been pointed out that the same question might arise in regard to factory premises, and for the sake of uniformity it is proposed to exclude hotels and restaurants which might be technically part of the factory premises from the definition of "factory premises," in the same way as was done in the case of a commercial building.

5.22p.m.

Mr. Ede

I do not follow this Amendment quite as clearly as I have the others which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. Suppose that on the factory premises there is a canteen or a dining room where the factory staff is served, will that building be exempted by this Amendment? That would seem to me to be a building that might very well be described as a restaurant. There are a good many factories in which there are welfare schemes where such a building exists on the premises. It seems to me to be highly desirable that such a building should be regarded as part of the premises for the purposes of giving protection under the Bill, and that the people employed in it ought to be considered in deciding what should be done. There might be a case in which this would make all the difference between getting the appropriate number of people to justify a scheme being made. The persons employed in what one might call a works restaurant are, in fact, very often employés of the firm. I would like to have an assurance that such a building would not be regarded as a restaurant for the purposes of this Bill.

5.23p.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I have been advised that the Amendment would not have that effect. There is no intention of excluding what is essentially a factory because a portion of the building or premises happens to be used as a canteen. The Amendment is intended to deal with the case of a building which is essentially a hotel or restaurant, part of which might come within the definition of a factory. For exactly the same reasons as determined the exclusion of restaurants from the definition of "commercial building," it is desired to exclude a hotel or restaurant from the category of factory premises.

5.24 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not been rightly advised. I will do the best I can to give him advice on the matter. For example, take a case with which I am familiar of a factory where, within the surroundings of a factory, there is a building which is wholly occupied as a restaurant and in which nothing is done except the feeding of the staff, cooking and similar things. It is a separate building, but it is within the purlieus of the factory. Clearly, that building would be one which is wholly occupied as a restaurant, and would not be deemed to form part of the factory premises. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do. He does not want a restaurant or a hotel to be considered as a factory; and he does not want to exclude a restaurant which is in a factory and part of a factory, and part of the actual staff and arrangements of the factory premises. I am afraid these words would exclude such a building. It depends entirely on whether or not there is a separate building. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to reconsider the matter.

Sir J. Anderson

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I know that the case of the separate building, of which he has spoken, has been considered, but I will certainly look into the matter and take further advice in the light of what he has said.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 66, line 31, after "college" insert "university."— [Sir J. Anderson.]

5.25 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, in page 66, line 39, to leave out from "and," to the end of line 2, page 67, and to insert: (ii) any residential part of a building (that is to say, any part which is used, or, so far as unoccupied, intended for use, for residential purposes) shall, if it is provided with a means of normal egress from the building which is not available to occupants of the non-residential part of the building, be disregarded for all the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to commercial buildings. This is a drafting Amendment which I am proposing in order to improve the form of words that was inserted in the Bill on the Committee stage on the Motion of of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). The object of those words was to secure that where there was a large building with shops on the ground floor, employing, say, 60 people, and above the shops good-class flats with living accommodation for, say, 600 people, that part of the building which included flats should not be reckoned as part of a commercial buildings if it were, in fact, separate and distinct from the remainder of the building and used exclusively for residential purposes. The object of the revised wording of the present Amendment is to make the position clear with regard to certain matters. First, it was thought desirable to include a specific reference to any part of a building intended for use for residential purposes which happened to be empty at the time, and to put that on the same footing as the part which was occupied. Secondly, the reference to its being exclusively used for residential purposes might have led to difficulties. For example, there might be an author living in a flat and employing a typist to whom to dictate his work. Thirdly, it was thought that in the absence of any express statement, there might be difficulty in saying when a part was separate and distinct from the remainder. Therefore, it was thought that it would be best to adopt as a criterion the provision which appears in the Amendment, that is to say, the existence of a means of normal egress from the building which is not available to occupants of the non-residential part of the building. The word "normal" is inserted as a measure of precaution in case anybody should make the point that there is a fire escape in the building which is common to both parts. I am afraid it is rather complicated and technical, but we have done our best to make the position as clear as possible.

Mr. Ede

Would this exemption cover a drapery establishment which has a shop on the ground floor, and residential premises for the assistants on the upper floors with a separate means of egress? I believe that such establishments are less common now than they were a few years ago, but a few remain in some parts of the country. In such a case it seems to me the upper part of the building should be regarded as being one with the shop premises on the ground floor. Steps should be taken to make sure that these cases are not exempted from the obligation to provide protection.

Sir J. Anderson

I am advised that the obligation on employers and owners applies to employé's who are living on the premises, although they may be in a separate part of the building. I shall have to look at it again, but it is certainly not intended to exclude portions of a building occupied in the circumstances described by the hon. Member.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, in page 67, line 2, at the end, to insert: (6) In relation to the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to the training of employed persons, this Section shall have effect as if for the words 'fifty persons,' wherever they occur therein, there were substituted the words 'thirty persons' This Amendment is consequential on a decision taken in Committee at the instance of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) which made the standard for purposes of training, though not for shelter, 30 persons instead of 50. The fact was overlooked at the time that this consequential Amendment was required.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, in page 67, line 10, at the end, to insert: Provided that —

  1. (a)regard shall not be had to any temporary increase occasioned by a change of shifts;
  2. (b)in the case of any factory, factory premises, mine or commercial building where there are outdoor workers, regard shall not be had to more than twenty-five percent. of their total number.
In this Sub-section, the expression 'outdoor workers' means persons who, on a normal day, work in the factory, in the factory premises, in or about the mine, or in the commercial building, as the case may be, for not more than one hour. This Amendment is a serious attempt to deal with a difficulty to which attention was called during the Committee stage. Every effort has been made to express, in perfectly precise terms, the legal obligation on employers, and on owners of commercial buildings, in the matter of provision of shelter. The definitions which at present appear in the Bill for that purpose, could be read in such a way as to include cases in which work is being carried on in two shifts, so that at certain periods of the day there are present at the factory the members of both the outgoing and incoming shifts. The question was raised, whether it was the intention of those responsible for the Bill to put upon employers in those circumstances the obligation to provide shelter for twice the number of people ordinarily at work at any one time of the day, because at certain periods, for a very short time, the members of both shifts were present.

The point is not an easy one. We are concerned to ensure that, as far as possible, the shelter provision is adequate, and at the same time to avoid placing what might be regarded as an unreasonable or intolerable burden on the employer. We came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the proper course was not to require the employer to provide shelter beyond what is necessary to accommodate the workers belonging to one shift. We thought that, in time of war, it was, very necessary, for reasons not directly connected with this Bill, to guard against any undue concentrations of persons. It seemed to me and my advisers that unless arrangements could be made to prevent such undue concentrations, situations would arise which would involve grave danger, even if this Amendment were not made, and employers were required to provide shelter accommodation for the members of both shifts. One has to consider, not merely the situation arising at the actual moment of the change-over in the factory, but the assembling of workers in the new shift for the purpose of taking over. It seemed that the situation would have to be met by some rearrangement which would, as far as practicable, space out the change of shifts. There may be, in particular cases, serious practical difficulties, but we shall have to do our best to overcome them. As far as they cannot be overcome, the situation we think ought to be met by the further provision of public shelter in the neighbourhood of the works affected. That seems to us to be the proper line of solution, as far as it may be impracticable to deal with the matter by spreading out the shifts. So much for the problem of shifts.

Before I pass from it I wish to make one point in regard to mines. It is not certain that this wording would be appropriate to the case of coal mines, or other mines where there is the question not only of providing shelter for the shift at work — the shift underground and on the sur- face— but also the question of the new shift coming on duty. I ought to say that the effect of this amended Clause, in relation to mines, would require further consideration in conjunction with the appropriate bodies.

I come to the next point involved in this Amendment which is referred to in paragraph (b). This is designed to deal with the case, also raised during the Committee discussions, in which there are, in connection with a place of business, not only the regular indoor workers, who work in the building for the normal day, but also outdoor workers, whose number may be comparatively large in relation to the number of indoor workers. The typical case is that of a business employing rounds men, who assemble at the headquarters of the business at stated times and who would require shelter accommodation. The appearance of these people at the headquarters of the business is a normal incident of the day's work, although they may not be actually present in the building for a very long period. It was thought that it would not be right to exclude altogether from the employer's obligation the duty to make provision for such people. But we thought it would be fair and reasonable from every point of view, if his obligation, in respect of the outdoor workers, were limited to 25 per cent. of the total number. It was felt that if arrangements were made, as they clearly can be made, for the attendance of these outdoor workers at different periods of the day, the shelter accommodation made in the factory under this definition would be reasonably adequate.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Ede

The problems dealt with in these two provisos have caused us some concern, and I think that, on the whole, the right hon. Gentleman has taken practical steps to meet them. I am sure, however, that in the end the best method of solving those problems will be for those responsible for organising industry in this country to give their minds to making arrangements for employment which will, as far as possible, avoid the circumstances envisaged in this proposal. I am not competent, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would claim that he is competent, to advise industrial leaders on this matter. I have suffered much in the past from being told by industrial leaders how to carry on my business. I do not intend to return the compliment and to produce on them the harrowing effects which they have produced on me, when they have tendered me advice on a subject on which they were not competent to express an opinion. Clearly, it is everybody's desire that there should be as little risk as possible to life and limb. It should be possible, by consultation between employers and employed, to arrange that the difficulties shall be reduced to a minimum with regard both to changes of shifts and the attendance of roundsmen and other outdoor workers at the centre from which their business radiates.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the word "work" in the definition is the best word to suit the circumstances. When a Wall's ice-cream man arrives at the place where the ice-cream is distributed in the morning to collect his supply, and when he returns in the evening to hand in his money, what he does at those two periods of time might be misdescribed by the word "work." I wonder whether some phrase such as "carrying on their employment" would not more closely represent the actual position of those people at those times. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman shares the view that if employers are responsible for the congregation at certain periods of the day of persons employed by them, they must also be responsible for providing adequate shelter for those people. We want to be sure that no word is introduced here which would allow an employer who sought to do so, to evade the responsibility which the House, I think, unanimously desires to place upon him. Therefore, while we accept this proviso as a serious attempt to meet the case, we hope the exact wording will be looked into, so that evasion shall be made as difficult as possible.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart

In regard to the question of the change of shifts, I sincerely hope the Lord Privy Seal will give this matter his earnest attention. Many of us who are acquainted with the working of mines in certain counties realise that in one shift you may have from 300 to 600 men employed and that provision might be made by the proprietors of those mines for shelter for those men in case of emergency, but at the changing of a shift you might have those 500 or 600 men increased to 1,000, and I submit that provision ought to be made to see that shelters are available in case of emergency during a change of shifts. Then, with regard to the paragraph which states that regard shall not be had to more than 25 per cent. of the total number, I submit that we ought to make provision for the other 75 per cent. What will happen, if we make provision for the 25 per cent., to the other 75 per cent. who may need shelter in an emergency? I sincerely hope the Lord Privy Seal will give his attention to those two points, and especially to the point relating to the shift system, where we may have, instead of 500 men employed in a pit, 1,000 at the change of shifts.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Duncan

There are two points that I should like to raise. I recognise that my right hon. Friend has made a serious effort to meet the points raised in the Committee stage, but with regard to the words in paragraph (b), that regard shall not be had to more than 25 per cent. of the outdoor workers, suppose you have a garage— take a London Passenger Transport Board garage as an example— where there are 80 people working. Twenty-five per cent. of that number is 20. Will the Transport Board therefore be outside the scope of this Clause because regard should only be had to 25 per cent., or 20 of the workers; in other words, will the Board have to provide shelter only in a case where there are 80 workers, or will they still have the obligation of making shelter for 20 out of the total 80? The other point is with regard to the figure of 25 per cent. I gave the example of the London Passenger Transport Board garage because I have one in my constituency, but the matter could be raised in connection with many other garages and bus operating undertakings. My right hon. Friend mentioned the case of milk roundsmen. In that case all the roundsmen go to the place where they collect the milk at the same time in the day, but in the case of a bus operating company, the employés do not go at the same time, and it may well be that, although 100 men are employed in the course of the day at the garage, nothing like that number is ever there at the same time. In those circumstances would it not be possible to have a smaller figure than 25 per cent. in those exceptional cases where never at any time of the day or night is there anything like the total number of workers on the premises at the same time? In this connection, perhaps before the Bill goes to another place, my right hon. Friend will consult with a public-spirited body like the London Passenger Transport Board or in any case of road transport undertakings, to see whether some special provision might be allowed in their case.

5.51 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson

With regard to what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, as to the manner in which this provision would work in practice, it coincides exactly with the view taken in the Department when this Amendment was drafted. We contemplated going a little further than I think he had in mind, for we contemplated inviting the organisations representing the main employers who will be affected by this Clause to address themselves to the reorganisation of their arrangements to meet that particular difficulty.

Mr. Ede

I suggested that those arrangements should be made privately between employers and their employés. I hope that no words that the right hon. Gentleman may inadvertently have used will be taken to limit that at all, because this is the kind of thing where, if there is not close understanding and co-operation between employers and employed, the best of schemes may be quite futile.

Sir J. Anderson

I quite agree, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows that in all the arrangements which the Department is making with a view to securing the collaboration of industry, we are taking into consultation the employers and the employed. The hon. Gentleman who raised the question as to the aptness of the words used in this Amendment put his finger on the point which has given rise to the doubt that I expressed in regard to its application to the case of mines. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Stewart), I do not know whether he heard what I said in regard to the application of this Clause to cases of coal mines, but I said that the Department recognised that it might be necessary to give further consideration to the matter.

There is no difference, I am certain, between hon. Members opposite and the Government as to what we want to do, which is to ensure that people who go to mines or factories in order to work are provided with adequate shelter.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart

The right hon. Gentleman says the Department realise that it might be necessary to give further thought to this matter. Will he say that it will be necessary, that it is necessary?

Sir J. Anderson

In any case, it is the intention of the Department to give further consideration to the wording of the Amendment from the point of view of its practical application to the case of a coal mine, in order to make certain that it is sufficient to ensure adequate shelter arrangements. In regard to the other points that have been raised, I do not think it is possible for me, on the spur of the moment, to do more than to say that they will all be taken into consideration, and if it proves necessary to make any adjustments in another place, such adjustments will be made.

Amendment agreed to.