HC Deb 09 July 1948 vol 453 cc764-73

  1. (1) The occupier of any factory in which more than fifty persons are normally employed shall provide and maintain at his expense in good condition, in a room or rooms set aside for this purpose, a canteen with adequate and suitable accommodation for taking meals at or near the factory, with sufficient tables and seats and crockery and cutlery and adequate means of warming food and boiling water and shall make reasonably practicable arrangements for the supply at cost price of hot meals for purchase by the workers.
  2. (2) The facilities referred to in the above subsection shall without charge be available to workers bringing in their own food and use of the said facilities shall not be made conditional upon the purchase of a meal.
  3. (3) In every factory to which the above two subsections apply there shall be constituted a canteen committee composed of equal numbers of representatives of the occupier and of the workers, the said committee to be responsible for the management of the said canteen and for the maintenance of adequate standards.—[Mr. Piratin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Piratin

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

In the principal Act, lengthy as it is, there is no provision at all for canteens and feeding arrangements, though wartime regulations were introduced which, I believe, still obtain, although I am not quite sure about that.

Mr. Isaacs

They do.

Mr. Piratin

I am much obliged. These war-time regulations required canteen facilities to be provided in factories where there were more than 250 workers, and the regulations served a useful purpose in providing meals for many workers, particularly those going to new factories and those going to factories for the first time, as many women did. They provided facilities which those workers would not otherwise have had. We are trying in this new Clause to extend the war-time regulation, which is likely to fall into desuetude, by providing that the minimum shall be 50 workers in the factory, rather than 250.

The Clause states that in factories where more than 50 workers are employed the occupier shall provide a canteen with adequate accommodation and sufficient tables, chairs, crockery and cutlery. At the moment there are many factories with no canteens. It is difficult to know the exact figure. The chief inspector of factories in his report for 1946 says there are about 5,000 factories with mechanical power where there are canteens and about 6,000 other factories where there are canteens. That is a total of 11,000, but there are 280,000 factories. It is difficult to know whether the other 270,000 are all small workshops of five or 10 people where one could not reasonably expect separate canteen arrangements. One must reach the conclusion that there is a substantial number of large and medium sized factories with no canteen facilities.

The Clause deals with a sufficiency of tables, chairs, crockery and cutlery. I could draw the Minister's attention to factories where 2,000 workers in a factory have an hour for lunch and are herded into a canteen containing only 200 seats. By a piece of simple arithmetic, that shows that a worker may take only six minutes over his meal. That is impossible. I have seen canteens where there are ledges against the wall and there are no high seats, and the workers stand up and eat their hot meals off these ledges. Such conditions are not congenial or helpful to the digestion. The employer can claim to be carrying out the terms of the regulation because he is providing a canteen, but such facilities are not fit for human beings and do not help production.

There is also crockery. Hon. Members will remember that earlier in the week the Minister of Food announced that he was advised that cracks in cups and dishes and so on do not constitute a source of infection. Some of us on both sides of the House gave a gasp because we had different ideas. I am not expert but as one who drinks from a cup I can say I prefer to drink from a cup which is not cracked. I will not be convinced that cracked cups or dishes cannot retain the seeds of infection. As we all know, there are such cups even in our dining room, about which we can make complaints to the right quarter, but there is a far greater proportion of such cups, saucers and dishes in a factory canteen and in restaurants. Surely the Minister will give consideration to the terms of this Clause which lays down principles in this matter?

1.45 p.m.

The next point is about separate accommodation. I know the problems involved here and am sympathetic about them. The Minister knows that I do not want to propose anything which is impracticable. He will remember our discussion on the Second Reading about seating accommodation and he will remember how he and I hoped it would be possible to provide seating accommodation for all by October, 1950. For many a small firm employing 50 or 100 people, it would be very difficult indeed to arrange for entirely separate accommodation for eating. In such circumstances some ad hoc arrangements must be made. Perhaps the Minister will use some discretion in his regulations until such time as life in industry is more congenial than it is at present.

However, there will be many instances in which this provision will be possible, and the Minister must deal with this matter very firmly because we get much disease and illness because there is no separate accommodation for eating in factories. In the case I mentioned just now, where there is only limited separate accommodation, many of the workers go back to their benches and eat their meals there. The earlier Sections of the principal Act deal with cleanliness in factories, and it is demanded by law that the floors shall be cleaned, I believe, once a week. Yet people have to eat in a place where there is dust and fumes and all kinds of dirt arising out of their occupation because there is no adequate separate accommodation.

Another point stressed in the Clause is that the workers shall have the means of warming their food and boiling water. I could give many reasons for this, but we can all imagine circumstances. Many workers take sandwiches to work, but other workers, whose wives are perhaps more industrious, are provided with pies or patties, and although it may be all right in July—in July in a good summer and not the kind of summer we are having just now—to eat a cold patty, in December or January the worker would like to have it heated. The Clause suggests that there should be such facilities and that they should be granted gratis. There is also the point that there should be a supply of hot meals at cost price. I was not happy about that expression when it was formulated. I had in mind that the prices should be such as obtained at British restaurants in the vicinity.

That might have been rather difficult for the Minister to accept because it would have meant a new kind of inspection, so I worded the Clause as it is on the Order Paper. However, I assure the Minister that I am prepared to accept any adjustment of this phrase in order to ensure that the cost is a low one and is in relation to that obtaining in British restaurants. I would draw the attention of the Minister and the Committee to the Report of the Factory Inspector for 1946, where it is said that in the year 1945–46 prices had risen in certain respects. The Minister of Labour will remember the reference to tea having gone up a halfpenny, a cup and other things having risen by 1d. or 2d. I do not know what has occurred since 1946, but that is a tendency which ought to be stopped.

Subsection (2) asks that accommodation should be provided for workers who bring their own food so that they may eat it in reasonable comfort. The Minister will be aware of cases where the workers are not allowed to go into the canteens merely to buy a cup of tea and eat their own sandwiches because the canteen management insist that they should have the meal provided in the canteen. The other week the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who is an employer of labour, told me about a problem he had. He said that his firm was aiming to supply good cheap meals to the workers. I have no reason to doubt it. He then claimed that many of the building workers did not take advantage of these good cheap meals but preferred to bring sandwiches. That may be the result of some domestic problem, or it may be the case that they cannot even afford the 1s. or 1s. 3d. for that extra meal.

I mention it to show that there are many workers who, in spite of canteen facilities, bring their own food. Therefore, this Subsection asks that they should be granted facilities in the factory for sitting down in the canteen and eating their sandwiches. I would go further and say that they are entitled to have a plate upon which to put their sandwiches. This should be supplied for, ultimately, it means no real cost to the management.

The third Subsection proposes that there should be a canteen committee composed of equal numbers of workers' and employers' representatives to see to the good running of the canteen and the feeding arrangements. I am sure we all agree that the facilities provided by the Clause would be welcomed by the workers and all concerned, and I hope the Minister will give the matter his favourable consideration.

Mr. Isaacs

We have all been interested in the way in which this matter has been brought forward, and the valuable points that have been submitted. I am in this dilemma: that I agree with all that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has said ought to be done. I agree that the conditions were bad under which many of us in the old days had to feed, and others have to feed now, and the only reason why I shall ask him to withdraw his new Clause is because of the practical difficulties, which I will explain to him.

To take the last part of the Clause first, the canteen committee; the evidence gathered when I was working in another capacity, for the Trades Union Congress, was that where a works committee was running the canteen service, food and everything else were much better than when it was run by an outside contractor. So on that point I agree that, if we can get these canteen committees going, it is the right way. I agree also that there should be facilities for those who for some reason or other do not buy their meal in the canteen but want to sit down somewhere to eat the meal they have brought with them. It is the practical part of his proposal which causes me some difficulty. The Clause says: The occupier of any factory in which more than fifty persons are normally employed shall provide and maintain. … That means that anybody employing 50 persons must provide a canteen. That is a practical difficulty at the moment because it requires rooms to be set aside for that purpose with sufficient tables and seats. Here again, I agree that inadequate facilities are provided at the moment but it is very difficult for a firm employing 1,000 persons with only enough space for 250. I know the processions that go in and out. However, this system of providing meals in factories is growing rapidly.

We want a little more co-operation from our own people. I have visited quite a number of factories during the last two or three years and in some cases, to my surprise, less than 40 per cent. of the persons in some factories use the canteens. In others it is as high as 90 per cent. Why is it as low as 40 per cent.? Because many of them live so near the factory that they prefer to go home. It may also be that for some reason they cannot afford the charge, and so they bring a meal with them. I am completely with the hon. Member that industry must work towards providing these facilities, but there must be co-operation. If it is the law that the employer of 51 people must provide a canteen and most of them do not want to use it, he is up against a difficulty. I am glad that the hon. Member qualified his reference to the cost. Many industrial canteens today provide meals for their staff at prices considerably below cost. Therefore, a provision that they must charge "at cost" might increase the charge.

The hon. Member has made his point, he has the assurance that we are working to that end and are getting close co-operation. The provision for 250 is in operation, but many with fewer employees are doing it also. What is more, many of these firms have installed these canteens. It is not merely a benevolent action, it is a proposition which pays dividends in more ways than one. So, with the assurance that we shall when we can, bring in legislation that will make these things compulsory, or more easily attainable than they are now, I ask the hon. Member not to ask us to accept a proposal which is absolutely impracticable in the present circumstances.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, West)

Before the hon. Member withdraws his new Clause, if he intends to do so, I should like to make it plain that there is a large body of opinion in the House, quite apart from the party represented by the Mover of the Clause—

Mr. Piratin

There is no party behind it.

Mr. Hudson

Well, the two hon. Members associated with it represent 100 per cent. of the strength of that party, and I want to say that there is probably another 100 per cent. again of Members in the party for which I am speaking who are very concerned about this matter. I am concerned for quite a number of other reasons than those mentioned by the hon. Member. There is need for the healthy provision of refreshment in workshops and other places to make it possible for the mass of the workers to select healthy refreshment for themselves. It is a scandal, after the war and all that we committed ourselves to in the war, that men should be sitting down amidst the tools in the workshops with oil on their hands because there is no decent lavatory accommodation associated with the canteens. It is a scandal that in a garage close to this House, which I have used for many years, there are more than 50 men at work who, when they get their meals, do so in conditions reminiscent of the factories of 50 years ago.

I am quite certain, after listening to my right hon. Friend, that he is thoroughly in earnest about this. I know the difficulties in the way, but there ought to be a new drive by the Government as to the duty of employers of less than 50 men to provide washing accommodation, a room for meals with plates, cutlery and other necessities for a simple meal, where the people may meet and get their meals in civilised conditions. If that were done it would do much to bring into the factories a better spirit, leading to a desire for greater production. Therefore, I support the plea that has been made.

Mr. G. Thomas

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, whose reply I much appreciated, whether it will not be possible for some provision to be brought forward on the Report stage ensuring provision for canteens for the workers when new factories are being erected. Canteens must become the normal part of industrial life in this country, as natural as the sanitary arrangements. I believe that is one of the few good things that came out of our war experiences. New legislation now ought surely to take into account this new development which has taken place on the industrial front. I am well aware of the difficulties at present, for in my constituency are some very progressive employers—I will say nothing about the others—who wanted to attach a new canteen to a factory. The battle for steel for its establishment was terriffic. We are all aware of the very real difficulties, but perhaps by the Report stage the Government might put forward a date—1953, for instance, or any year the Minister cares to choose—when new industrial establishments and buildings shall make provision for canteens for their workers.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Solley

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could say something about the possibility of the compulsory provision in certain cases of a packed meals service? In the case I have in mind—that of some workers in my constituency—I asked the Minister of Food for canteen facilities in a factory or the alternative of a packed meals service. Although the Minister was prepared to do his best to accede to the suggestion, the employers for their part did nothing. I understand the difficulties of my right hon. Friend, but I hope he can say that in future, in co-operation with the Minister of Food, he may be able in certain cases to make provision—which will cover part of the intention of the new Clause—for the compulsory provision not of a complete canteen service, although I hope that can be done in appropriate if not in all cases, but of a packed meals service.

The Deputy-Chairman

I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that line of argument. He should confine his remarks within the limits of the new Clause.

Mr. Solley

I am sorry if I have unwittingly departed from the rules of procedure, but my right hon. Friend is now aware of the point I was making and I hope it will be possible for him to deal with it at some other time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are equally enthusiastic for the provision, wherever possible, of adequate canteen facilities. My only objection to the new Clause, whose intention seems wholly admirable, is that it seeks to do something, in itself excellent, in the wrong way and at the wrong time. It is no use ignoring the fact that it simply is not possible to provide the physical accommodation in factories at present because in many cases licences cannot be obtained to do the work. Equally, the licences may be quite properly refused because materials are not available. We must not seek to write into an Act of Parliament in the year 1948 something which all of us know is in many cases quite impracticable.

Secondly, I doubt very much whether the inclusion of such a provision in the Factories Acts is the right way to tackle this problem. The whole purpose of Factory Act legislation is to lay down minimum standards below which industrial premises and processes may not fall; it does not seek to lay down what many—indeed, most—intelligent employers are prepared to do. For these reasons I very much doubt whether such a Clause as that now proposed is appropriate or suitable for inclusion in the Factories Acts.

Having said that, I think I am entitled to urge upon the Government the desirability of doing everything that is possible to facilitate the provision of proper canteen facilities. Much of that can be done administratively, by the granting of licences wherever possible. A good deal also can be done by the Treasury in taking a more intelligent view as to what is allowable for Income Tax purposes in work of this kind. In saying that the new Clause does not seek to do the job in the right way, I want at the same time to urge that it is a job which should be done and which every intelligent person realises is of the greatest importance both to industrial production and, what is even more important, to industrial welfare.

Mr. Isaacs

I will look into the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). I am not sure whether such a matter would come within the scope of the Clause dealing with the suitability of factory premises but I undertake to look at it. In reply to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I can assure him that we shall use every means open to us to encourage the development of such a service. As, however, it may entail a separate Act, being outside the scope of existing measures, this position also will have to be examined. I shall be very happy if I personally can be the means of bringing about an extension of this service and I shall be glad to give it my attention.

Mr. Sparks (Acton)

Local authorities have undertaken the provision of meals in British restaurants. This field affords great scope for co-operation with local authorities in the provision of canteen facilities of this kind.

Mr. Isaacs

That is another case, but I will explore it.

Mr. Piratin

In view of the statement of the Minister and the impression made upon him from all sides of the Committee of our feeling in this matter, and the fact that I believe and hope that steps will be taken in this direction, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.