HC Deb 01 April 1960 vol 620 cc1739-63

Amendment made: In page 5, line 27, leave out "thereunder" and insert "made under section one thereof".— [Mr. J. Harvey.]

2.26 p.m.

Mr. Marsh

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This has been, certainly for me, an interesting exercise. It has probably been in some ways a useful one in providing Members of the House with the opportunity to discuss a large and important section of the population who are frequently overlooked in modern times. During the last fifty years, there has been a tendency to lose sight of the fact that the standards of the white-collar worker in this changing society have deteriorated largely in relation to other sections of the community.

It is true that factory and industrial workers still have many things of which they can rightly and justly complain, but it was extraordinary to me, when I first became interested in this subject, to find that there was no legislation for the protection of about 10 million non-industrial workers. The decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to set up the Gowers Committee, which reported in 1949, was welcomed by all shades of opinion.

On Second Reading, some of us were distressed that even in 1960 there appeared to be a large body of opinion in this House which regretted or was opposed to the introduction of minimum standards of health, safety and welfare for office workers in particular and for non-industrial workers in general. I am very pleased that since that stage, hon. Members opposite have seen the bright lights of truth and have come to the penitential stool. We are very pleased to have them with us.

We are all pleased to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who has been very helpful throughout the proceedings, in, perhaps, a happier—

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

After a bad start—

Mr. Marsh

After a bad start— "better the one than the ninety and nine". We are all pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman so obviously much happier on this occasion than when he rose out of his sea of troubles last time.

On Second Reading, all hon. Members were surprised at the body of opinion which existed and the articulateness of white-collar workers on their claim for some form of protection against the conditions in which many of them work. It is true that many white-collar workers work in first-rate offices which are well lit, airy and well ventilated, and are ideal places of employment. It is equally true that, in 1960, many thousands of people doing an important job for their employers and for the country still work in conditions which are a disgrace to any community.

I have received many letters about office conditons, and if I had been called in the debate last night on our accommodation here I would have said some very bitter words about the difficulties of an hon. Member who suddenly finds himself in a position of unexpected notoriety on account of work he has done and is consequently made the recipient of hundreds of letters. An hon. Member in those circumstances has to suffer many difficulties if he has not clerical assistance and facilities.

There was, in particular, a letter from a lady who said that her office was a stingy little room without any heating or electricity; there was no sanitation whatever; and to get to it she had to climb a ladder. Not being of the type who wear trousers, she very often noticed men at the bottom of the ladder.

From any good social legislation there are beneficial effects on employees' output, if the health, safety and welfare of the employees are cared for, and one of the biggest surprises which I had in considering this matter was that, though there were many workers suffering from bad conditions extant in this country, no one, and I include the Government, knew just how bad those conditions were. If we have done something, with the assistance of so many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House, to ensure better conditions for these office workers we shall not have laboured in vain.

These workers' contribution to society is certainly not less than that of anybody else and they ought to have working conditions not less good than those of anybody else and not less good than those of the industrial workers. They ought not necessarily to be any better than anybody else's. It was not the intention of the Bill to ensure that office workers should work in luxury, in conditions a cross between a chromium-plated Espresso bar and an Eastern harem, but to provide for those who spend the greater part of their lives in offices, reasonable, healthy, decent conditions. One thing which amazes me is that it should have taken longer than fifty years to get this House even to look at this problem in a serious light.

In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman was pressed to some extent about the conditions of non-industrial employment generally. I think that it would be generally accepted that now that we have accepted the position for office workers there can no longer be any argument relating to the remainder of the small proportion of people now left without the implementation of the Gowers Report. I am very hopeful that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will continue in that spirit of helpfulness which they showed so much so that—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member may be tempting the right hon. Gentleman outside the scope of debate on Third Reading.

Mr. Marsh

I accept that, Mr. Speaker. This is just another example of my complete innocence in these things. However, I feel that this is an important Measure although I agree that it is very restricted.

I would like, at this stage, to offer very sincere words of thanks to a number of people without whose assistance no Bill, certainly not one sponsored by anyone with my lack of experience, could ever have got this far. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are fully aware that in this place one can do little without a degree of support from a wide range of people.

Support for the principles of this Bill has extended over a very long period. I hope that it is not out of order to remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) had a Bill, to which I have referred before during the course of this Bill, on similar matters as long ago as 1936. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) had another and my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) had the last in the series, and they have all made attempts during the years to improve people's working conditions, and, in the absence of drafting assistance on this Bill, their Measures were a considerable help in the preparation and drafting of this one.

I should also like to thank—I hope it does him no harm—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey), who has been of very great assistance to us on this side of the House, if for no other reason than that he has kept his hon. Friends under control.

I should like to pay tribute to the way in which we have arrived at Third Reading. We, as a result of the free decision of hon. Members on both sides, disregarding the advice of the Government, proceeded to the introduction of legislation, and with the assistance of expressions of opinion which we have received from supporters we have reached Third Reading.

I should like also to express a word of thanks to people who frequently receive no thanks at all—the Press—for I think that to have had in the course of this argument and controversy the support of sections of the Press, from The Times, in a first leader, to the front page of the Woman's Mirror, is something which falls to the lot of few people. The Press are frequently criticised by hon. Members. I would not deign to argue the respective merits of articles by hon. Members on the liquidity ratio and on fatstock prices and of other articles on the sex life of Miss Dors, but I think that the Press do sometimes, as on this occasion, a very good job of assisting us.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will, even before the Bill becomes law, introduce legislation of their own which will not have the imperfections from which a Private Members Bill upon a subject of this type must inevitably suffer. I hope that in that legislation they will endeavour to cover all sections of this community, whether they wear threadbare white collars or go to work in overalls, for they are all entitled, in 1960, to at least the minimum standards of health and safety and welfare.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. Bishop

As one of those who voted against the Bill on Second Reading I should just like to say a word on Third Reading. First, and in all sincerity, I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. March) on having brought his Bill through to this final stage here.

I, as one of the original opponents, do not at all feel that I am at the penitent's stool now, because the Bill, as we are considering it, is very different from the Bill which we considered on Second Reading. I should like also to congratulate the Committee on the Bill on having amended it and on having succeeded in putting it into what, I think, is a reasonably practical form. I can, perhaps, say that word of congratulation to the Committee, not having been a member of it myself.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey), whom I do not see in his place now, spoke a few minutes ago on one of the Amendments as though he was rather criticising those Members of the House who had not been on the Committee, criticising them for not participating in the work which the Committee did. I can only say that we do not select ourselves for Committees.

Personally, I would have had no objection to being on the Committee; indeed, I should rather have liked to have been, to have helped in this work —but I have learned that it is rather unwise to put forward a claim to sit upon a Committee, for one is apt some- times to be told, "We are very sorry that we cannot squeeze you in this time, but we have something else coming up and we shall not forget you then". Be that as it may, I think that the Committee has done a good job and that the Bill is a very much better Bill than the one with which we dealt on Second Reading.

That is not to say that I think that the Bill is even now perfect. I think it contains requirements which may perhaps put an unreasonable burden upon employers, if, of course, its provisions are not interpreted very reasonably. For example, I notice in Clause 1 that, whereas the word "shall" has gone out and the word "may" has been substituted in most places, the word "shall" remains in one instance: The Secretary of State may make regulations … (b) for the provision of adequate and suitable facilities for washing which shall include hot and cold water…. That is the only case where the word "shall" remains.

We all agree that office accommodation should include hot and cold water, but we must not think entirely in terms of large offices in London and great cities, where all these amenities and facilities are supplied. If we consider the many different kinds of small office, scattered all over the country, which fall within the definition contained in the Bill, we see that a mandatory provision that hot water shall be supplied may prove very difficult to comply with in present circumstances. The sooner we can reach a situation in which hot water is easily and conveniently laid on for every kind of office, large and small, the better, but I still have doubts as to the wisdom of imposing a mandatory obligation of that kind.

On Report, we wrote into the Bill a new Clause dealing with the question of a person—meaning an employer who, by reason of the terms of an agreement or lease relating to any premises, is prevented from carrying out in those premises the requirements of the Bill. That is a proper provision to have written in. But not only the terms of a lease or agreement may stand in the way of an employer. There are other obstacles. One is the question of planning permission. Within the last week a case arose in my constituency of a firm which was refused permission to add an additional floor to its office building, which it urgently needed to provide office accommodation for a greatly expanding business. We must keep in mind the practical problems which have to be faced, and in some respects the Bill may prove to be too stringent in its requirements and obligations.

Nevertheless, there is still a possibility that these matters of detail will be considered in another place. For the rest, I would only say that we must rely upon the reasonableness of the regulations which the Minister will make—and which are no longer mandatory upon him as they were in the original draft—and upon the fact that those regulations must come before the House for approval. I hope that when they do we shall all have regard to the common desire that those who work in offices, whether in the centres of towns or in small places in the country, where conditions vary considerably, should have the best possible conditions, but that, at the same time, no burden should be placed upon employers which might, in the end, have an adverse effect upon employment and production.

If we can rely upon the regulations being framed in that spirit, and considered by the House in that spirit, the Bill will serve a very good purpose.

2.44 p.m.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) upon what I regard as an outstanding Parliamentary triumph. I am pleased that the Government had the good sense to yield to the will of the House as expressed by its vote in the Second Reading debate. For many years some of my hon. Friends have been pressing the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Gowers Report, on which this Bill and the previous legislation affecting agricultural workers were based.

I am glad that my hon. Friend paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) for their attempts to enact this kind of legislation in earlier Parliaments, but I want to mention particularly one other person. Among the hon. Members who pressed for this kind of Measure year in and year out none was more persistent than Mr. David Jones, who served this House with distinction for fifteen years and who was constantly pressing the Leader of the House to introduce this kind of Measure. If he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debates on the Bill he will be as pleased as are all hon. Members on this side of the House.

The labourer is worthy not only of his hire but of decent conditions in which to work, and it is a disgrace that in Britain, in 1960, many thousands of clerical workers should have to work in conditions of the kind described during our debates on the Bill—conditions which would not be tolerated in any modern factory.

It is not enough to put the Bill on the Statute Book; the battle that we are having to implement the provisions of the 1944 Education Act shows how important it is, once a Measure has been placed on the Statute Book, to get some will and drive behind its implementation. I hope that after having conceded the purpose of the Bill quite handsomely, and having collaborated with my hon. Friend in carrying it through, the Government will be prepared to let office owners know that this is no idle Measure, and that the Government are prepared to see it carried through in a way that will be of practical benefit to clerical workers. We must make it plain that we are beginning a drive to do away with bad office conditions.

I warmly congratulate the trade union movement, which has been consistently fighting for this sort of legislation. Today is a milestone in its long battle. But I specially congratulate my young colleague, the hon. Member for Greenwich, on the statesmanlike way in which he introduced the Second Reading and dealt with the manifold Parliamentary hurdles that confront anyone who seeks to put a Private Member's Bill on the Statute Book. I hope that the House will give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading.

2.48 p.m.

Dr. Glyn

The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said that he hoped the Government would give the Bill every support. I hope that the Government will eventually introduce more comprehensive legislation than has already been encompassed in this Measure, so that we may bring true benefit to the office workers. Hon. Members on both sides agree that there is a necessity to protect such workers. At the same time, I do not think that anybody would deny that this is one of the most complex and difficult subjects to deal with by legislation, because types of office acommodation vary so greatly both in London and other parts of the country.

Some offices consist of one room, and, however much we try to legislate in this matter, there is the overriding difficulty of finding the necessary space in fully occupied offices in which to provide for the necessary and important washing and sanitary facilities which should not only be expected but provided by employers.

Hon. Members ask why I put down so many Amendments to the Bill after having voted against its Second Reading. I voted against the Second Reading because I considered that as the Bill stood it was not suitable for legislation, and I doubted whether it would be humanly possible to introduce a sufficient number of Amendments to make it workable.

I want to pay a special tribute to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who has been extremely co-operative, and to congratulate him on his great foresight in introducing the Bill. He should be proud of the fact that it has now reached its Third Reading. As a private Member the hon. Gentleman was in great difficulty in drafting this Measure, and I am glad that hon. Members on this side of the House have been able to assist him in that respect. In endeavouring to make this a workable Bill we put down a large number of Amendments. I believe that it was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) who said that he had never known a Bill with so many Amendments. This would seem to point to the need for the Government eventually coming to our rescue and superseding this Measure by more comprehensive legislation. What we have done has been rather like converting an old house—one can never really achieve what one wants.

There is in this country a genuine difference of opinion as to the necessity for producing a Bill on this subject, and many of my hon. Friends were perhaps sceptical about it. One argument put forward was that since office building is proceeding at such a pace the conditions of work in many blocks of offices are now so good that people looking for clerical work will not accept an offer unless the accommodation provided is up to a certain standard. I cannot accept that argument because, although new offices are being built at a rather alarming pace, it must be many years before the amount of office accommodation in London and elsewhere will be sufficient to bring all accommodation up to the necessary standard all over the country. In this connection, I am reminded of the conditions existing in many lawyers' offices in London. They are characteristically dirty and nearly always have a worn-out Turkish carpet on the floor.

It is extremely difficult to legislate in this matter. For instance, the rights of tenants and landlords have both to be considered. We made an effort on Report to overcome that difficulty, but I do not know whether we have succeeded. It would have been much easier if we could have confined ourselves to new tenancies, instead of having to try to convert existing tenancies by legislation. Our real problem here is not so much to provide the facilities as to produce extra rooms in offices in London where there is already overcrowding.

Much comparison was made with factories during the Committee stage. Towards the end, both sides of the Committee realised that there is a great deal of difference between legislating for offices and factories. I hope that the remarks made during that stage of the Bill about notices will be appreciated, because I do not subscribe to the view that it is necessary to put notices everywhere to draw the attention of people to the law. Indeed, it is a fundamental principle of the law of this country that ignorance of the law is no defence.

Office workers are among the most intelligent workers and I am certain that, if they do not know the law, the trade unions and other bodies representing them will soon inform them of their rights. It is, therefore, a pity that we have to be encumbered with the necessity for posting notices, and to my mind it is an under-estimate of the intelligence of office workers.

On the question of the employment of women after childbirth, the great practical difficulty is that many employers will be loath to ask the prospective employee whether she has had a child within a certain period. As I see it, unless the employer takes reasonable steps—which, in my opinion, must be to question the prospective employee—he is not protected under the law. It is a pity that we should have to legislate in this way and I agree that this is a subject which would be more suitable to another sphere of legislation.

In conclusion, I again compliment the hon. Member for Greenwich on having achieved his object of bringing the Bill to this stage, but I hope that the Government will assure us that the Bill will be encompassed in proper legislation, since this is a subject more suitable for Government legislation. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate today he will give us an assurance that the imperfections of the Bill can be improved by future Government legislation, since we on this side af the House have co-operated in an endeavour to make the Bill as workable as possible until such time as the Government can introduce comprehensive legislation on this subject.

2.56 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) on the notable success that he has achieved in his first Parliamentary Session. I am certain that the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons will be quoted for all time to come as one of the benefits of private Members' legislative opportunities. My hon. Friend not only drafted the Bill as it was introduced, but he survived the stern opposition of the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who spoke for the Government during the Second Reading debate. Then my hon. Friend embarked on the Committee stage, and what happened there is a good example of what can be done when there is good will and an earnest intention on the part of hon. Members on both sides to make the best of some legislative proposal which is before them.

I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey), and those associated with him, for the way in which they co-operated during the Committee stage. When I recall the history of the Bill I find that it is something like a bicycle which has had new handle bars, new pedals, a new chain and, finally, a new frame. One asks oneself whether it is the old bicycle, or a new one. Although the name of my hon. Friend will always be associated with the Bill and, if I may be allowed to say so, it will always be known as the Marsh Bill, I am sure that he would be the first to admit that some of the language in it did not come from him but from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, East and those associated with him.

Dr. Summerskill

And my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead).

Mr. Ede

Yes, but that goes without saying, because the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West appears on the back of the Bill. No matter who looks up the history of the Bill, unless they go carefully through the Committee stage they will not find the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East.

I congratulate all those who were associated with the Bill upon the result which they have managed to achieve. I say that as the Minister who was responsible, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, for appointing the Gowers Committee. I endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and hope that now we shall have a comprehensive conclusion to the work of the Gowers Committee in a general Act which will bring matters into line with what was recommended by that Committee.

In view of the severity of the language which I used on Second Reading, perhaps I may be allowed to express my hearty congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary not merely for being repentant, but for bringing forth fruits meet for repentance in the generous help which he and his officials gave my hon. Friend and the others of us who were associated with the Bill in Committee in framing the Amendments which have enabled the Bill to be presented to the House today with almost general approval.

I hope that those who will have to undertake the administration of the Measure will realise that the Bill now emerges from the House of Commons as one on which complete agreement has been reached between the parties, and that it is sent forward for administration from this House with a general desire that its provisions shall be fully implemented. It is a remarkable Parliamentary achievement, and I hope that those who will have to undertake the administration will enable us all to feel that what we have been able to achieve as a result of the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich is a Measure which will bring to many people who badly need it assistance in maintaining good health and securing that their employment is conducted in conditions worthy of the twentieth century.

3.2 p.m.

Mr. J. Harvey

Naturally, I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the kind remarks that he has made about me and other hon. Members on this side of the House who have tried to be reasonably helpful about the Bill. I have always taken the view that a Bill such as this could do nothing but serve a useful purpose. I did not, of course, subscribe to some of the arguments that we heard originally from the other side of the House about the teeming masses of aggrieved office workers to whose aid the House should rush, because I believe that nowadays office accommodation in this country is, by and large, of a fairly high standard.

However, the fact that so much office accommodation is of a high standard merely serves to accentuate the difficulties of some office workers who do not enjoy comparable standards. Therefore, I have taken the view, and I think that most of my hon. Friends would take the view, that a good employer has nothing to fear from a Bill such as this, and that what we should aim at is a nation in which employers shall not only be good employers, but be proud of being good employers; and I think that the Bill can do nothing but help towards that end.

I wish to add my own congratulations to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) upon the success that he is now, obviously, as we look at the clock, well on the way to achieving with the Bill and also upon the willingness which he has shown throughout to be reasonable and to seek agreement and compromise.

I feel that the House as a whole can pause to consider the passage of this Bill from a rather bumpy and uneasy start to the stage where it is now almost through. We might thus consider how, on occasion, one can get away from rigid party political lines and see how far we can together achieve some compromise on a Measure which will benefit large numbers of people who support hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House and would even support members of the Liberal Party—if there were any of them here— and also some who probably support none of us, anyway. All of them will benefit in one way or another from a Bill such as this.

I also repeat the thanks I expressed earlier, and which the right hon. Member for South Shields has just expressed, to my right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State, who has been extremely persevering and helpful to us in the passage of the Bill and who, I think we can usefully recognise, is bearing a formidable load one way and another during this Session. I am immensely grateful to him for all the help and advice that he has been kind enough to give me.

Having said that, and emphasised that a good employer has nothing to fear from the Bill, I would re-emphasise one or two of the points that have arisen and which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind as and when he comes to the drafting of any regulations that may be made.

The first is the question of defining an office. I am not at all sure that the present definition is as satisfactory and watertight as it might usefully be, and I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Department will be able to look at that again. Here I acknowledge the advice and assistance I received from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Personnel Management. Although these two bodies have been kind enough to write to me and give me quite a lot of advice, neither they nor my right hon. Friend, nor his Department, were able to evolve a perfect definition of an office. It is desirable, however, that we should try to see that the definition is as perfect as possible before we get into the possible legal implications of the Bill.

That apart, I hope my right hon. Friend will remember some of the things we discussed in Committee, such as the difficulties of the little room behind the little shop in the back street. Is that an office, and is it one which comes under the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) has had an Amendment accepted about the Mines and Quarries Act, and we should bear in mind the other exceptions. A case in point concerns temporary offices such as those erected over building sites.

I am sure my right hon. Friend will bear these points in mind and I see no harm in re-emphasising them today. We should all note that under the Bill we have established two most important points. It lays it down that before making any regulations … the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests concerned. That can do nothing but ensure that the regulations that are made will take account of all the difficulties, provided that the people who are likely to find themselves faced with difficulties realise it now and act upon it.

Then the Bill also provides that the Secretary of State may make different provisions to meet different circumstances. That is a wholly necessary and wise precaution. In so far as I and certain of my hon. Friends have been able to help in the passage of the Bill, and have moved a number of Amendments to it, we are only too pleased to have been able to help in this way.

I still subscribe, however, to the view that I expressed on Second Reading, and which has been re-emphasised today, that, fundamentally, this is the sort of Bill that should come from the Government and not from a private Member. The field which it has to encompass is a larger one than private Members can or ought to be expected to try to cover. But at least now we have a Bill on the stocks and well on its way to the Statute Book, and no doubt the Government will, in due course, consider whether it should not form part of a wider and more embracing Measure, codifying some existing practices and incorporating what is new.

Whatever may lie ahead, I am sure that on both sides of the House we can feel that a reasonably good and workmanlike job has been done where something needed to be done, if only to encourage those who work in offices and who make a great contribution to the national economy as a whole.

3.10 p.m.

Mr. V. Yates

I very much agree with many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) and other hon. Members who have done their best in Committee to make this a very good and presentable Measure. It is an example of what can be done in Committee, and the hon. Member and others are to be applauded.

I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) on being able to bring the Bill to the Third Reading. I tried with a similar Bill two years ago and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) tried later, but we did not succeed. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich for having brought the Bill to this point.

Today, the House is giving a light to the country and to millions of office workers. As one who was an office worker all his life before becoming a Member of Parliament, I cannot but feel a certain amount of pride that the House is about to approve the Third Reading of this Bill.

I left school at the age of 14 and I was employed in an office from half-past eight in the morning till eight o'clock in the evening for 6s. a week. I gave up that job after six months and got a job with a solicitor, but I had to accept a reduction of 1s. If in Committee I criticised lawyers, perhaps I will be forgiven because of my experience as a boy of having my wages reduced from 6s. to 5s. a week when I worked in a solicitor's office.

As it stands, the Bill is not the ideal which many of us would like. I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East that a more comprehensive Bill would be better and that it would be an improvement if we did not have to leave so much to the regulations to be made by the Minister. I had hoped that those regulations could have been closely tied to standards.

I have seen many examples of those who have suffered from the lack of provisions such as these, especially those dealing with health, lighting, space and air. The Bill will offer new hope to many workers in London and the provinces who can look forward to the day when all those mirrors which are hung in alleys to reflect light into offices will be removed and when offices will have natural light and air.

It is with some pride that I support the Third Reading of a Bill which I believe to be the beginning of a new charter for the black-coated worker. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, who was under something of a cloud after Second Reading, because his advice was not fully accepted, and who in Committee has shown—I will not say repentance—a readiness carefully to listen to what was said. He has shown, as a good Parliamentarian will, the need to meet the wishes and desires of both sides. I congratulate him on his lack of any kind of bitterness about matters on which there has been disagreement. I hope that the Bill will now be passed unanimously.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)

I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, because a little later I hope to burden those few hon. Members who remain in the Chamber.

As one of the few hon. Members who voted against the Government on Second Reading, I should not like to let this occasion pass without congratulating the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) on his success, and thanking my right hon. Friend for having done what he has done since the Second Reading debate. I confess that during the Second Reading debate I interrupted my right hon. Friend with considerable ire because he was making a speech which I thought was more reminiscent of nineteenth century Liberalism than even nineteenth century Toryism. I am glad that since that day he has used his influence to see that the Bill gets on to the Statute Book. Although it is not a suitable Measure for a Private Member's Bill, I am always grateful for half a loaf rather than none.

I have spoken about nineteenth century Liberalism. It is remarkable that, despite all the talk we hear from the Liberal Party, it has taken little or no interest in the Bill. There is an exceptionally large attendance here this afternoon. On Fridays hon: Members usually go to their constituencies, but no Liberal Member has been present, or, as far as I know, taken any interest in the Bill. That is typical of the Liberal Party. It makes a song and dance about being interested in the ordinary people who count, but they do not count when one has to do something for them—only when one is rendering lip-service to them.

I am grateful for this opportunity to congratulate both the hon. Member for Greenwich and my right hon. Friend on what they have done to make the Bill a reality. It has been an extremely difficult Bill to phrase. I realise its imperfections, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glynn), I hope that it will not be long before a more comprehensive Measure takes its place.

3.17 p.m.

Miss Bacon

I join in the congratulations which have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) on bringing the Bill to its Third Reading. I also congratulate him on the way in which he conducted the proceedings in Committee.

There was a time during the Committee stage of the Bill when he became a little depressed because the date of the coming into effect of the Act, which he had envisaged as July, 1960, was put back to January, 1962. I ask him never to despair in this place. The Gowers Committee, of which I was a member, was set up in January, 1946. It reported in 1949. I did not think that over thirteen years after the coming into being of the Gowers Committee I would be standing at this Dispatch Box welcoming the fact that part of its Report will be put into operation in two years' time. It is a marvellous achievement that so new an hon. Member has proceeded so far.

His greatest achievement, having promoted the Bill, was to extract from the Government a statement of the possibility of legislation to implement the whole of the Gowers Committee Report. That miraculous change on the part of the Government has taken place within three months. After the Second Reading debate some of my hon. Friends said that I had been rather rough on the right hon. Gentleman. I was, but I think that we all recognised at that time—and if we did not then we have since—that the speech he made was not his own. As my hon. Friend said, the right hon. Gentleman did not look too happy on that occasion, and looked much happier during the proceedings in Committee when he was able to accept the fact that the Bill was to become a reality.

It was said on behalf of the Government on Second Reading that they had every confidence in the Gower Committee's recommendations … being achieved on the basis of competition, fair dealing and enlightened self-interest, without the need for legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 11th December, 1959; Vol. 615, c. 974.] It is a great step forward that the Government should now have recognised that legislation is needed, not only for officer workers but for other classes of workers mentioned in that Report, such as those in cinemas and theatres. We welcome this change and we are very pleased that the Government recognised, and accepted, the will of the House in this matter. I should like to pay tribute, too, to the work of some hon. Members opposite in Committee in association with the small group of my hon. Friends who have taken a special interest in this subject.

This Bill is a new charter for office workers who, up to now, have been forgotten. It will make them confident, not only that they will have better conditions in future but that this Parliament feels deeply about their conditions of work. The time is now ripe for implementation of other parts of the Gowers Committee's Report, and I hope that we can go ahead with legislation to that end.

I sat on the Gowers Committee for some considerable time, and I know that other members of the Committee will be very pleased indeed that the hours— and not only the hours, but the years— that we spent then have not been wasted. We have to thank my hon. Friend for seizing this great opportunity, and for bringing his Bill to this stage today. I hope that it will receive an unopposed Third Reading.

3.22 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

I apologise for rising at this stage, but I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) on achieving the distinction of putting this Bill through the House. It must be very gratifying to him to know that he has achieved his objective.

I was not very happy about the Bill in the first place, and I am glad that the Minister himself has promised so to improve it that when it comes back from another place we shall find that it is a workable Measure. If the regulations to be made under the Bill are reasonable, office workers will get some advantage, but I do not think that nowadays people work in offices in unsatisfactory conditions unless they wish to. There is plenty of work available, and workers can choose the employer they wish to serve.

Yesterday, we had an interesting debate on our own accommodation. I wonder what would have happened had today's debate taken place yesterday and the debate on House of Commons accommodation had taken place today, because when this Bill is enacted we shall be in some difficulty here. We employ quite a lot of people—[An HON. MEMBER: "This is a Royal Palace.") It may be a Royal Palace, but those who are employed here will be controlled by regulations made under the Bill. We shall then have to do many things which will, perhaps, make the Minister of Works rather more active than he yesterday indicated he could be in our present situation. The Bill might give some advantage there.

I am certain that office workers will find great opportunities to persuade employers to improve some of the conditions under which they work at present. I hope that when we are dealing with the small employer we shall not attempt to operate all the regulations which are to be made and make it more difficult for that employer to carry on his business. Clause 2 deals with the employment of women after childbirth, and the Minister will have to consider how this will effect the professional man who is working in his own home.

Miss Bacon

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that the hon. Member has not been in the Chamber. Had he been present, he would have known that Clause 2 went out of the Bill.

Mr. G. Thomas

The hon. Member has not been here all day.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Clause has been deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Lewis

The Clause as amended is contained—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Clause was not amended.

Mr. Thomas

While welcoming the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) to the Chamber for the first time today, may I tell him that Clause 2 has disappeared from the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Clause was not amended; it has gone.

Mr. Lewis

I have listened to the debate even through the Committee stage. The Clause has disappeared, but the Minister said that he would deal with this in due course. He will still have to consider the question of how to deal with a professional man who is working in his own home and employing his wife as a secretary. This is designated as an office, and he gets all the advantages of having an office in his own home.

Mr. J. Harvey

Precisely those sort of circumstances are specifically excluded from the Bill.

Mr. Lewis

I am very glad to be informed that that is so. In any event, when the Bill is passed, let us accept the principle that it must not be applied rigidly. If it is applied rigidly, all those who employ office workers not in any large numbers but in small numbers will find themselves at a disadvantage. Apart from that, I think that the Bill will serve its purpose and be of great advantage.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. Vosper

I should like to join in the tribute to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). In addition to everything else said, I personally found him a very good-natured Member with whom to negotiate on this Bill. He said that he thought that I was a happier man now than I was during Second Reading. I think that may well be the case, but he and I must face the fact that we shall be rather uneasy when the Bill becomes operative, in 1962, because it will not be an easy Measure to implement. Many of those who have to give effect to its provisions will, I think, have great difficulties. There will be teething troubles and I think that the House would do well to accept that.

On Second Reading, I advised the House to vote against the Bill on the grounds that it was ten years since the Gowers Committee reported, that the Government needed further information and that it was delegated legislation. The House did not accept my advice on that occasion, but I am quite used to that happening in my present r61e. The Government did, of course, accept the decision of the House, and the Bill as it now comes back has been redrafted with Government assistance.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey), who voted for the Bill, to my hon. Friend for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who voted against the Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glyn), who, I think, voted against the Bill, who moved Amendments, in co-operation with the Home Office, and I think that as a result we shall have on the Statute Book a workable Measure, at least on a temporary basis.

The Government gave some indication of their intention by moving a Money Resolution, although a somewhat inexpensive one, to enable the Committee stage to take place. But the pattern of the Bill remains the same in that it is delegated legislation. I think that it would be the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Bill should have taken the form of the Factories Acts or the Agriculture (Safety. Health and Welfare) Act in its substantive provisions, but there was not time to redraft the Bill to enable that to be done.

I find that some hon. Members who have not followed our deliberations in Committee very closely are a little confused by the changes that have been made. Briefly, they are four in number. In Clause 1, we provide flexibility in the operation of the regulations. The date has been deferred from some time this year to January, 1962. That will allow time for inquiries that may be necessary to be made. It will allow time for consultation, for the preparation of the regulations and, of course, for the enforcement authorities to make their own arrangements. Thirdly, we have sought to secure a fair balance as between landlord and occupier and as between employer and employee. Fourthly, we have provided in the Bill arrangements for enforcement and for expenditure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East was concerned about definition, and so am I. Clause 3 as it stands is still the most vulnerable part of the Bill, but, despite much research between the Committee stage and this stage, I have not been able to improve upon it.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) was concerned about the word "substantial". He wanted to insert the words "wholly or partly". That would be going too far, and the hon. Member would be rendering himself liable to criticism by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis). We have retained the word "substantial" and I believe that is right.

I have been asked by outside interests to make clear the application of the Bill so far as it might affect offices on the ground floor of a block of flats, where the substantial use of the premises is as a private residence. I think that the right view is that such an office would be brought within the scope of the Bill, because it is an office within the meaning of the definition. The only premises to be excluded are those which are an integral part of a private residence. This is the answer to my hon. Friend.

Accordingly, while the Bill would not apply to any clerical work done in individual flats, it would apply to any separate office in a block of flats. In other words, the definition is intended to apply to any office, however small, where the sole use of the room is for office or clerical purposes, but not otherwise.

There is a further point to which I should address myself, and that is in respect of the enforcement authorities. During the Committee and Report stages Amendments have been made in respect of offices in factories and offices in mines and quarries. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) has made two attempts to introduce Amendments relating to fire prevention, but he was not successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But there is substance in the argument, and possibly other enforcement provisions should be made in accordance with similar provisions in factory legislation.

On the subject of enforcement, possibly the last word has not yet been said, and in any legislation which might follow this Bill we might have to have further talks about enforcement authorities generally.

The House will want to know the Government's intentions after the Bill becomes law. We may still require further information from local authorities. We shall certainly consult with the interests concerned; in fact, I have been asked to do this. The T.U.C. saw my hon. Friend the other day and asked that it should be consulted, not only about further legislation but about any regulations which are made under what has now come to be known as the "Marsh Bill." It will take a considerable time to prepare the regulations themselves. The Bill, as it stands, will come into operation in January, 1962, and regulations will be laid then or thereafter according to the type of regulation.

As to the future, the Government are considering whether the Bill should be overtaken by some more comprehensive form of legislation such as has been referred to.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

Will it be desirable to have the regulations before the date of operation?

Mr. Vosper

If the hon. Gentleman means the preparation of regulations, that, of course, will be undertaken, but the regulations will not be laid until such time as the Bill comes into effect. I think that is reasonable. We did discuss it in Committee.

I have much affection for the Principality of Wales and I do not wish to hold up the interests of hon. Members from Wales. I therefore hope that it is common ground, and always has been common ground in the House, that we are concerned that office workers should share in the improved economic and social conditions now becoming available. The difference on Second Reading was not one of principle, but of method. I took the view then that, possibly, these things would come as a matter of course now that the economy was in a buoyant state, but this was not the decision of the House, and, therefore, the matter is to be dealt with by legislation.

I still hope, however, that we may not need to wait until 1962, but that employers will now see what is required by the House, they will look at the Gowers Report itself, and much work may be done between now and 1962 towards implementing the intent behind the Bill. When enforcement does come, there may not be quite so much work to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.