§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
§ New Clause.—(ENFORCEMENT OF ACT BY FACTORY INSPECTORS IN CERTAIN CASES.)
§
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 1.8 p.m.
§ Mr. John Harvey (Walthamstow, East)I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This, and the other new Clauses with which I am concerned, arises from our 1712 discussions in Committee. The hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) suggested that it would be helpful if, where offices were located in factory premises, enforcement were undertaken by factory inspectors instead of local authorities, as would otherwise be the case. My right hon. Friend agreed to consider that suggestion, and the new Clause is submitted as a result.
The position now is that local authorities are still responsible, even under the Factories Act, for inspection in relation to the provision of sanitary conveniences and to the employment of women after childbirth. Those duties will remain with local authorities, but on considering further the proposals put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham, I am advised by my right hon. Friend that there would be no official objection to factory inspectors being responsible for the inspection of offices in those respects except where those offices existed in factories.
The new Clause gives effect to the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend. It is true that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) made the point that local authorities were already responsible for inspection in some factories, but that is true only of factories not using mechanical power. Only one in ten factories does not use mechanical power. That point is, therefore, not particularly applicable. I therefore suggest that we should accept the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend.
Major W. Hicks Beach (Cheltenham)I welcome the concession in the new Clause, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) so kindly said, it implements some observations that I made in Committee. Like everyone else present, I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, but we must guard against the duplication of work by inspectors under the Factories Act, under this Bill when it becomes an Act, and under the Mines and Quarries Act. I shall have something to say about that later. The new Clause meets my point, and I welcome it.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper)My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) 1713 consulted me on this point, and the new Clause has been drafted with Government help. It meets the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Bench) and makes a sensible alteration to the Bill.
§ Mr. Richard Marsh (Greenwich)We regard this as a sensible and helpful Amendment and from our point of view it will help the Bill.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause.—(POWER OF COUNTY COURT TO MODIFY AGREEMENTS AND APPORTION EXPENSES.]
- (1)A person who, by reason of the terms of an agreement or lease relating to any premises, is prevented from carrying out in those premises any structural or other alterations which are necessary to enable him to comply with the provisions of any regulations made under section one of this Act may apply to the county court, and the court may make such an order setting aside or modifying any terms of the agreement or lease as the court considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.
- (2) Where—
- (a) any structural or other alterations are required in any premises in order to comply with the provisions of any regulations made under section one of this Act, and
- (b) any person interested in the premises alleges that the whole or part of the expenses of the alterations ought to be borne by some other person having an interest therein,
- the first mentioned person may apply to the county court; and the court may make such an order concerning the expenses or their apportionment as the court (having regard to the terms of any agreement or lease relating to the premises) considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.
- (3) In the application of this section to Scot land for any reference to the county court there shall be substituted a reference to the sheriff.—[Mr. J. Harvey.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time
§ 1.15 p.m.
§ Mr. J. HarveyI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I preface my remarks by. saying that I have had valuable help from my right hon. Friend and his Department in the drafting of all the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. I cannot claim any personal credit. They were all drafted, as I hope the House will agree, in the spirit of trying to 1714 arrive at an understanding and accommodate the various points of view put forward in Committee. I think that we should all be grateful to my right hon. Friend and to his Department.
The Amendment arises out of a proposal put to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glyn). He pointed out that, by the terms of an agreement or lease, a person might be prevented from carrying out works necessary to comply with the provisions of regulations made under the Bill. My right hon. Friend said in Committee that this would receive consideration. In fact, other legislation deals with this difficulty. Sections 146 and 147 of the Factories Act, 1937, enable a county court, on application, and after hearing the parties, to make an order setting aside or modifying the terms of an agreement, and, in case of dispute as to which party should be responsible for the cost of structural alterations, to make an apportionment of costs. That is what the new clause seeks to do to overcome the present difficulty.
§ Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)I am cognisant of the difficulties which exist, that a block of offices is often occupied by many individual leaseholders. Although the new Clause goes a certain way to help, we are faced with considerable difficulties. In many offices, it is not only a question of the legal rights of a lessee or a tenant and what he may do; it is a question of the accommodation which exists in the building.
There is another difficult problem, and that is the extent to which in a Measure of this nature one can override the rights of leaseholders or freeholders. I should have preferred to make these regulations applicable to new leases rather than to try to modify existing conditions in offices which are incapable of modification.
I support the new Clause, but I do so with many reservations. It cannot, and will not, be the answer which we really want.
Major Hicks BeachI agree with the new Clause. I made some observations on this point in Committee and, to a limited extent, it meets the point I made. It does not meet the point completely, but I am prepared to admit that it is difficult to meet from a legal point of 1715 view. Although I agree with my hon. Friend that it would have been more desirable, from a legal point of view, if the Bill applied to new leases, I do not think that that is a practical approach to the problem.
There will be grave difficulties over this, but they are difficulties that we must face and, on the whole, this is a reasonable compromise. Before the Bill gets to another place I hope that my right hon. Friend will think over this point to see if he can get over the difficulty. Having occupied and worked in offices for many years, I can say that this is a real difficulty, and one which should be overcome if it is possible to do so. I am only a humble solicitor, but I hope that my right hon. Friend, with the full weight of his Department behind him, will be able to devise something to overcome this difficulty.
§ Mr. VosperI accept that this is a difficult problem. I think that members of the Standing Committee will recollect that representations on this point were made by one of the professional organisations. We have attempted to meet that point. In doing so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) said, we have followed the precedents in Sections 146 and 147 of the Factories Act, 1937.
I accept that this problem is more difficult in the case of offices than in the case of factories. I should not like to lead the House to believe that we can improve on the wording in the new Clause, but I note what has been said. If as a result of that, or any other representations, improvements are possible, I will consider them for submission in another place.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause.—(EXCLUSION OF PLACES BELOW GROUND TO WHICH MINES AND QUARRIES ACT APPLIES.)
§
Nothing in this Act shall apply to any place below ground to which the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, applies.—[Mr. J. Harvey.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. J. HarveyI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
1716 To provide the background to this Amendment it is necessary, once again, to go back to the Committee stage. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) said then that offices dealt with under the Mines and Quarries Act did not need to be dealt with under the Bill. It is true that the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, goes a very long way to providing for the health, welfare and safety of workers in mines and quarries, but it was meant to deal not so much with office workers above ground as with those working at the surface of mines and quarries.
It is, therefore, felt that the Bill should apply to workers above the ground, although we take the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend about the provision for office workers underground that are contained in the 1954 Act. The purpose of this new Clause, therefore, is merely to ensure that duplication is not necessary for the inspection of the conditions of office workers under the ground, but that the Bill shall apply only to workers above the ground, and confer on them the additional protection they do not now have under the Mines and Quarries Act.
Major Hicks BeachThis new Clause goes, perhaps, half way towards meeting my point, but not all the way, so I cannot say that I approve of it. I think that the same difficulty will arise. We shall have duplication of inspectors. We shall have inspectors under the Factories Acts and local authority inspectors, all of whom will have powers to inspect offices that are all part of one building. As the promoters of the Bill have gone far to meet me over the Factories Acts point, I should have thought that they could have met me on this one. I cannot, therefore, give my blessing to this new Clause.
§ Mr. VosperAlthough I appreciate the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), the Mines and Quarries Act contains provisions rather different from those in the Bill. All the provisions of the two Measures are not identical. If one applied to above-surface offices only the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Act those offices would be inspected at a standard lower than that required for other offices. We 1717 therefore think it right in logic that the Bill should apply to surface offices, as the provision of the Mines and Quarries Act would not in themselves be sufficient.
On one point, perhaps, it might be possible to go a little further towards meeting my hon. and gallant Friend, and that is on the question of inspection. There is some force in his argument that the inspection should be carried out by the one body, and it would be possible for the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate, who would inspect the below-surface offices in accordance with the 1954 Act, to inspect the surface offices in accordance with this Bill. That would prevent the duplication of inspection that he fears. If that would help him, I would consider an Amendment to be dealt with in another place, if the sponsors of the Bill were agreeable.
§ Mr. MarshThe right hon. Gentleman has made an important point. The sponsors of the Bill are not concerned with who inspects any offices, but with the standard of that inspection. The 1954 Mines and Quarries Act was not designed primarily for these workers, although it makes some provision for them, and if it is possible, as the right hon. Gentleman says, to meet the point about the Factory Inspectorate by ensuring that the same people could inspect both types of offices and that the standard of inspection laid down would be applicable to all office premises, there would be no difficulty at all.
What we would all regret would be, having gone so far, to have two levels of conditions and welfare for offices. An office is an office—although the legal fraternity might not agree—whether it is in a quarry, below ground, or above it. We would, therefore, oppose any attempt to leave out offices in mines and quarries generally, although if, at some later stage, it could 'be ensured that inspections could be introduced in accordance with the Bill, nobody on this side, or, I think, on the other, cares who carries out the inspection.
§ Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)I must apologise for not having been present sooner, though the reason is obvious when one looks at the time. Throughout the Bill it will be very hard to define an office. Accommodation situated, say, 1,000 feet under the ground might be defined as an office under the 1718 Bill, though, of course, it is not an office in the sense of there being typists and the like in it. It will probably be a place where miners report on coming off work, when someone has to make the necessary entries. This points out the difficulties of the Bill. If we make it as wide as this, there are caught in the net many fish that were not intended to be caught at all.
If this new Clause is accepted, as I hope it will be. it will represent a small effort to improve the Bill, but if we are to deal with one exception after another to offices under the Bill we shall be here for weeks defining every kind of office within the meaning of the Bill which is not an office within the meaning of what we intend to cover.
§ Dr. GlynI could not agree more with what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has said, but I think that what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has said brings us to the crux of the whole Bill. It is extremely difficult to define an office. It may well be that Government legislation will later be introduced which can deal with this point comprehensively.
The hon. Member for Greenwich said that he was quite happy as long as the standard of inspection of offices below the ground was adhered to, but one has to appreciate that there are different standards in offices below ground from those in offices above ground. For that reason, the factories or quarries inspector, as the case may be, might be the most suitable to carry out the inspection, as he would be familiar with those sort of conditions. That would also avoid this unfortunate multiplicity of inspections.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time.
Major Hicks BeachI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to leave out "below ground".
The new Clause would leave offices at the surface of a mine or quarry subject to inspection by local authority inspectors, and would also leave them to be regulated under other provisions. My real point in tabling this Amendment is to avoid dual inspection, which would be wasteful and undesirable. In 1719 a great number of cases, mines and quarries are in rural areas, which would probably mean that the second inspector, the inspector under this Bill, would have to make a special visit of inspection. I contend that the inspection could easily and properly be carried out by the mines and quarries inspector.
Let me say at once to the promoters of the Bill that I do not suggest for a moment that it is desirable in any way to have two standards for offices. That is certainly not my intention. My intention, and I think that it is a very important point, is not to lower the standards but to cut out work by cutting out duplication of inspections. That is the whole object of my Amendment. My hon. Friend has gone some way in his observations to overcome my point. I do not think that he has gone the whole way and I hope that before the Bill goes to another place more consideration will be given to this point.
1.30 p.m.
Of course, if it is quite clear—and I do not know whether my hon. Friend is in a position to give me an assurance on this point—that the Ministry of Power is prepared to undertake inspections, as it has powers to do under the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, and to see that the offices concerned are kept up to the standard of the Offices Bill, then my whole difficulty is overcome. But I do not think that my hon. Friend said that. It seems to be totally undesirable that two Minister should have the duty of making regulations for what are virtually the same premises. That is putting the whole problem in a nutshell. I do not mind who does the inspecting. Personally. I think that it would be better done by the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate. I do not suggest for one moment that proper standards will not be maintained, but we do not know what standards are to be laid down by the regulations.
It seems to me that the Amendment is a commonsense solution. It is one which will cut out red tape and dual inspections and the creating of quite unnecessary work for a great number of local authority inspectors.
§ Mr. VosperPerhaps I did not make myself quite clear to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelten- 1720 ham (Major Hicks Beach). I advise the House that I think that we can meet his point about inspection. The Minister of Power is prepared to authorise the mines and quarries inspectorate to inspect surface offices, but to inspect them up to the standards in the Bill. That is possible within the terms of the Financial Resolution. The Amendment goes further than that in the sense that, while it might empower the mines and quarries inspectors to inspect the surface offices, it would only be up to the standards within the terms of the Mines and Quarries Act, which, I think, is not in the sense of the House.
I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend should not press this Amendment, and I will pursue the matter further with the intention of having moved, in another place, an Amendment which will empower the mines and quarries inspectorate to inspect all offices within their concern.
§ Mr. DoughtyThe difficulty in what the Parliamentary Secretary has said is that we do not know in this Bill what is the standard. It is an enabling Bill with power to make regulations. These regulations can be of an extremely high standard, or of a lax standard, and well below or well above the requirements of the Mines and Quarries Act.
There is a great deal to be said for the Amendment. If the Minister knows what the regulations are to be and knows that they are to be of a higher standard than those of the Mines and Quarries Act, then, of course, he should tell the House so. So far as the present extent of our knowledge is concerned, we merely know that he has power to make regulations, which he may or may not make, and that under the Mines and Quarries Act there is a very high degree of standard required for these places above ground. Therefore, my submission to the House is that the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend should be accepted.
§ Mr. VosperThere is one further point that I should like to make. There are quite considerable differences between the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Act and what is envisaged in Clause 1 of the Bill and what is in the Gowers recommendation. In the Mines and Quarries Act there is no provision for 1721 prevention of overcrowding nothing relating to temperature, no provision for adequate ventilation and no provision for offices to be kept clean. Those are four items in which there is a difference between the Mines and Quarries Act and the regulatory powers in Clause 1 of the Bill and the Gowers recommendation. For that reason, I feel that we should adhere to the standards in this Bill.
§ Question, That "below ground" stand part of the proposed Clause, put and agreed to.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ Clause 1.—(REGULATIONS SPECIFYING STANDARDS AS TO STRUCTURE, ARRANGEMENT AND OPERATION IN OFFICES.)
§ Mr. MarshI beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert "and passenger lifts".
The intention of the Amendment is to ensure that passenger lifts in any offices should be inspected regularly and maintained to an adequate standard. I think that it would be a pity, if in any Bill designed to provide minimum standards of safety in office buildings, lifts were excluded. I understand, however, that there are a number of legal difficulties in the application of this Amendment. No doubt if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could give us some enlightenment, it might well be easy to get over these difficulties.
Major Hicks BeachI must confess that, with all the good will in the world, I see grave difficulty in dealing with this question of lifts, because there is no definition of what is a passenger lift. Is there to be an inspection of lifts used to take up baggage and that type of thing? Are lifts in the General Post Office which take up bags of mail to be subject to inspection? I should not have thought that they came within the definition of a passenger lift, although, in fact, passengers very often use them.
I would strongly advise the House not to accept the Amendment, though that is not to say that I do not approve of the objective. I am in complete sympathy with the objective, as I am with the terms of the Bill, but we do not want to send out from this place a Bill which is incapable of practical effect—although, as a lawyer myself, the more bad law 1722 there is the better it is for me. We do not want to send out a Bill with an Amendment like this which, from a legal point of view, is totally unenforceable and which would cause people to question what it means. I feel very strongly that, in the interest of making the Bill work, we should not accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MarshIn view of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. J. HarveyI beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the end to insert:
(2) The Secretary of State may provide b; regulations for restricting the employment of women in offices after childbirth.This Amendment is designed to put Clause 2 of the Bill as it now stands into Clause 1. It is in the main a drafting Amendment in that it seems desirable that all the various regulations which the Secretary of State may make should be listed together in Clause 1.That apart, the Clause as it left the Standing Committee is not acceptable because it provides that the Secretary of State "shall" make regulations. This point was argued constantly in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), who was successful in getting the Committee to insert this provision, was even more successful than he realised, because the Committee did not spot that the phraseology which they had carefully ironed out all the way through had nevertheless managed to get itself passed in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. However, I feel that we should now tidy it up by bringing it in line with the rest of the regulations that the Secretary of State "may" make—
§ Mr. DoughtyOn a point of order. The next Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) relates to the provision of regulations for restricting the employment of women in offices after childbirth.
§ Mr. HarveyThat is the Amendment to which I am speaking.
§ Mr. DoughtyI am sorry. I did not appreciate from what my hon. Friend was saying that he was moving that Amendment.
§ Mr. HarveyI have been dealing first with the need to make Clause 2 a subsection of Clause 1 and to provide that although the Clause as passed by the Standing Committee contains the word "shall," the operative word shall now be "may."
Apart from this general tidying up, it is arguable that any regulations affecting the employment of women after childbirth should be flexible, because the type of employment that might be involved could require very different regulations. The effect of this Amendment is precisely that. It was pointed out in Committee that if there are to be restrictions on the employment of women after childbirth, the employer should have the defence that he did not know that the woman had had a child within a prescribed period. This is, indeed, recognised in the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, and the Factories Act, 1937, under which the offence is "knowingly to employ." If this Amendment is accepted, it will be possible to include the word "knowingly" in any regulations which my right hon. Friend may make in due course to deal with the matter.
§ Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Ladywood)I support the Amendment. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when, in Committee, I moved the Amendment to which he referred I omitted to notice that the word "shall" occurred. I must confess that I am still amazed that in our legislation we have to use the word "may" as meaning "shall". However, as this is our custom, I accept that this proposed subsection should be included in the manner suggested.
I also think it reasonable that the words which have been suggested relating to an employer "knowingly" employing a person in these circumstances should be accepted. I am grateful for these suggestions, for I believe that they will emphasise the importance that we attach to human considerations in industry.
§ Dr. A. GlynThis proposal is a compromise. I am rather doubtful whether the employment of women after child- 1724 birth should really be the subject of legislation. This is rather a different matter from the Factories Acts which deal with very different ciroumstances, such as danger, dirt, and various other considerations. I believe this matter to which we are now addressing our attention is a matter for individual choice. Many women like to go back to work immediately after childbirth. On the other hand, there is the question of benefit to which women are entitled, and some women do not wish to work too soon and lose their benefit. I wonder whether we are right in legislating, particularly in respect of offices where the work is not particularly arduous, and. indeed, where in some cases it gives genuine pleasure to people when they feel sufficiently fit to work.
1.45 p.m.
The other point, which has been met, relates to the question of the employer's defence. Many employers would not know that the person whom they intended to employ had just had a child. That matter has already been dealt with; but there is one other point. Is an employer to ask every time he wishes to employ a person, "Have you just had a child?" This is a practical difficulty, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he makes any regulations under this Clause, will bear this point in mind. This is not so much a question of human rights. It is to a great extent a matter of human choice, and people choose to work at different periods after childbirth.
§ Mr. DoughtyI would ask the House to reject this proposed new subsection. No one would accuse me of suggesting that women should be pushed back to work at the earliest possible moment after having had a child. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glyn) that it is very much a matter of personal choice. Some people are anxious to go back early, while others wish to stay away a long time. If any regulations are to be phrased word for word as the Bill is phrased, a tremendous hardship will be placed upon employers, or else a lot of trouble will be caused in offices. Suppose that an employer is considering engaging a single woman and says to her, "How long is it since you had a child? ". There would be trouble. In any case, he might not even get a 1725 straightforward answer. This proposed subsection would give the Secretary of State power to make just that sort of regulation.
We are told—if I may use the expression without intending discourtesy to anybody—in an airy-fairy kind of way that the Minister will probably not make regulations exactly in those words. But we are giving him power to do so.
§ Mr. J. HarveyIt will not have escaped my hon. and learned Friend's attention that we have already ensured in Committee that any regulations that are made will be subject to affirmative Resolution of this House. They cannot be made without coming to the House for affirmative Resolution.
§ Mr. DoughtyWith respect, one knows how a great many affirmative Resolutions are passed very late at night when there are very few Members in the Chamber. They go through "on the nod" one after the other. We are now in full House—a rather empty House, perhaps, but that is common on Fridays—and we have to decide what powers we are prepared to give to any Secretary of State. A totally different Secretary of State may be in office in ten years' time. I feel that we are granting too wide powers and we should be very careful in deciding what we do in the way of giving these general powers to Secretaries of State.
Some other Secretary of State, looking at this provision, would say, "The House obviously thought when passing the Bill that there should be regulations restricting the employment of women in offices after childbirth and I propose to make my regulation in that form with the same sort of words". He would come to the House and say, "That is the Act which the House passed, and I am only using the words that the House of Commons decided upon". It would be an excellent argument.
In my submission, if it accepted the Amendment in the form in which it comes before us today, the House would be making a mistake. If a better drafted Amendment giving the Secretary of State more restricted powers were to be inserted in another place, or on some other occasion, I am sure that I could support that. I object to this Amendment for the reason I have already given, 1726 that we are endeavouring to evade the consequences of a bad form of words by saying, "It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. We all know he is a very nice chap and he will do the right thing in the regulations".
This is the wrong approach. The House must say exactly what it wants and what it wishes to be done. For that reason, I ask hon. Members to reject the Amendment, though, as I say, I should possibly agree with the addition of an improved form of words at another time or in another place.
§ Miss Alice Bacon (Leeds, South-East)I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. We had a long discussion on this matter in Committee and, after a vote, it was decided that a provision of this kind should be accepted.
The Gowers Committee, of which I was a member, received a good deal of medical evidence on this very point. In paragraph 62 of its Report, it is made quite clear that the Gowers Committee came to its conclusion after hearing the evidence of the British Medical Association and others:
Some representations have been made to us that shop and office legislation of the future should contain provisions prohibiting the employment of women for a fixed period before and after childbirth. This accords with the view of the British Medical Association, who favoured complete prohibition for a period of six weeks before and seven weeks after confinement.Later in the Report it is said that the National Insurance Act makes possible the payment of benefit to women for seven weeks after confinement. It is quite clear that, in consideration of the National Insurance Act and also in the Gowers Committee's consideration of the subject, it was felt that something of this kind should be included.The hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glyn) has said that work in an office, perhaps, is not quite so heavy as work in a factory. We must not always assume that. Very often, people working in a factory sit down for a good part of the day. Very often, people working in offices are trotting up and down stairs and on the go all day long. There is also the effort of getting to and from work. Also, although this is not the primary purpose here, we should remember the welfare of the new-born child.
1727 Bearing in mind all these considerations, particularly the conclusion of the Gowers Report after hearing all appropriate medical evidence, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. DoughtyThe hon. Lady has not dealt with the point I raised. I did not dispute any of the facts which she has given. I pointed out that this form of words, if translated into regulations under the power it is suggested we should give to the Secretary of State, would place an employer in a quite impossible situation. It is the form of words, not the principle behind such action, to which I object.
§ Miss BaconI should have thought that these words were quite wide enough to give the Secretary of State power to make the regulations.
§ Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)I oppose the Amendment because I find it difficult to see how the Secretary of State can make adequate arrangements which will not be offensive to women generally. Some women may not wish to disclose the fact that they have recently had a child. The onus, according to what is proposed here, will be on the employer to ensure that no woman, during a prescribed period after childbirth, will be employed in his business. He must question women whom he proposes to take on to his payroll. That will not be a very pleasant thing to have to do. It is one thing for a doctor to ask such questions, but it would be quite foreign to the sort of attitude that we have to women after such events for laymen to put questions to them of that kind.
I am certain that such an intrusion would be particularly resented by those unfortunate women who happen to have illegitimate children. They may have their babies away from their homes and then, on their return, they have to go back to work. If the House were to make it an offence for a woman to take employment during a certain limited period after childbirth, that would be another matter; the onus would be upon the woman and, if she broke the law, she would be liable to prosecution. In this Bill, the onus is put on the employer, and this inevitably means that an employer must seek a written agreement 1728 from every woman that she has not had a child within the prescribed period before he proposes to take her on.
A great deal of embarrassment might be caused. A young girl of 18 may apply for a job in an office. The first thing she is asked, when she is seen by the prospective employer or one of his staff, is, "Have you had a child within the last four or five weeks?". Of course, the girl will be outraged, and her parents might well decide—
§ Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)The hon. Gentleman is using the wrong phraseology. He says that she will be outraged. She was probably outraged long before then.
§ Mr. WilliamsThe young girl may be married, in which case she will not have been outraged. Many parents would find it disgraceful if they sent their daughter for a job and the first question asked by the employer was, "Have you recently had a baby?".
§ Mr. V. YatesAs I understand the Amendment, after the explanation given by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey), there is no obligation on the employer to question anybody. That matter can be made clear by regulation. I should have thought that, if a woman has to leave for the purpose of giving birth to a child, the employer will obviously know without any questions whatever. The hon. Gentleman is introducing unnecessary difficulties.
§ Mr. WilliamsThe hon. Gentleman has obviously not listened to what I was saying. I was talking about the employer wishing to take a young girl on to his staff. How does he know whether she has or has not just had a baby? He may well not have seen her before in his life. She may have gone to some distant part to have a child and, within a few weeks after having the child and, perhaps, having the child adopted, she comes back to her home district and tries to find employment. How is a prospective employer in a place like Birmingham to know whether a young woman has had a child recently?
As I understand the Bill, if an employer commits an offence, he will, under Clause 9, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 and, if the offence is continued, he will 1729 be subject to an even more serious penalty. I really do not believe that any Secretary of State could make regulations which could be decently interpreted by the employer. The onus has to be put on the employer, and this means that the employer must ask the young women these questions.
The only way in which we can stop the employment of women after childbirth is, of course, to have a general Bill which puts the onus on women not to work for a certain period after childbirth. This is not a matter which should be the subject of a Private Member's Bill. The principle is so important that it should be dealt with by the Government. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment but will withdraw it. If he presses it, I shall vote against it.
§ 2.0 p.m.
§ Dr. GlynI am in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams). As I see it, the matter depends entirely on what regulations my right hon. Friend may make.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to speak twice on the Report stage of a Bill?
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)It is not in order for an hon. Member to speak twice. I thought that the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn) had not spoken on this Amendment.
§ Dr. GlynI have not spoken on this Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
As I have said, the matter depends entirely on what regulations my right hon. Friend makes. It will be incumbent on an employer, whatever regulations are made, to ask a prospective employee whether she has had a child within a certain period. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that to ask whether a young girl has had a child is extremely embarrassing.
I hope that, when my right hon. Friend makes the regulation, he will take all the matters that have been mentioned into consideration. It is true that this is a compromise between both sides of the House, but I still think that it is unfortunate to make it part of our legislation that a person should 1730 be asked whether or not she has had a child and at what time.
§ Mr. F. P. Bishop (Harrow, Central)I should like to try to clarify this point. Is not the obligation on an employer covered by the words:
Provided that in any proceedings taken for any such contravention it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he used all due diligence to secure compliance with the provision"?Does not that deal with the matter of regulations that may be made by the Minister under the Bill?
§ Mr. DoughtyOne can use "due diligence" only by making a full inquiry That is the point of our complaint.
§ Mr. BishopI proposed to refer to what that could mean in relation to this Amendment.
How does an employer conform with the requirement to use "all due diligence" to make sure that he does not engage a girl who has had a child within whatever period may be described by the regulations? This is a rather tricky point. It illustrates the kind of burden that may be thrown on an employer by the provisions of the Bill. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) could help us in this matter.
§ Mr. J. HarveyI am in a difficulty. If my hon. Friends who find themselves opposed to this proposal had been with us in Committee or were aware of what we tried to do in Committee, they would know that we used all the arguments which have been put forward against an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates). We were worried about precisely these points. Since we were deprived of the support of these hon. Members in Committee, we did not carry the day. Therefore, after talking to my right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State, it was thought that this Amendment would be a reasonable compromise. If the Amendment were accepted, my right hon. Friend "may" make regulations. As I have said, such regulations will be subject to the approval of this House in due course.
I think that if we assume that the Secretary of State, in framing his regulations, will not take into account the 1731 objections which were forcibly made in Committee and which have been made again today, we shall not give the Secretary of State any credit for taking to heart the lessons either of the Committee stage or the Report stage. We attempted in Committee to resist this altogether. We were not successful in doing so. We are, therefore, today suggesting that it might be a reasonable compromise between both sides of the House if, instead of binding the Secretary of State to provide for this in the Bill, we give him permissive power to do so, subject to affirmative Resolution of the House. It seems to me that we have adequate safeguards.
§ Mr. V. YatesThe hon. Member will recollect that attention has been drawn to the fact, as is stated in the Gowers Report, that in Scotland and in London this is the law. It is stated that in London and Scotland it would be an offence for the occupier of a factory knowingly to employ a woman or girl within four weeks of her giving birth to a child.
§ Mr. Dudley Williams"Knowingly".
§ Mr. Doughty rose—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerOrder. Both the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) have exhausted their right to speak.
§ Mr. VosperPerhaps I may try to help the House. Those hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will recollect that I advised the Committee not to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), not because I was against it in principle but because I felt that he was going the wrong way about it. It is true that in Section 61 of the Factories Act provision is made of a similar nature, in respect of London and Scotland only, to put this obligation on an employer, but it is a substantive provision. It does not apply to the rest of England and Wales.
I further told the Committee that this matter was considered at some length during consideration of the Factories Bill last year when my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies advised the Committee that it 1732 should not pursue the matter further and that this was a subject more appropriate for public health legislation. He offered to refer the whole matter to the Central Health Services Council for England and to the appropriate body in Scotland.
I advised the Standing Committee that it would be better to tackle this subject on public health legislation, and not to insert provision for it in this Bill. The Committee did not take my advice on that occasion. I then had to consider what should be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) and I decided that it would be unreasonable to ask the House to reverse the decision taken on that occasion, although obviously it is a matter for further consideration.
The reason for the Amendment is to try to make this provision conform to the rest of the Bill. If my hon. Friends vote against the Amendment, they must in logic vote against the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. The Amendment is a more modest version of the hon. Member's proposal. As the Clause now stands, many of my hon. Friend's fears would be justified, but by inserting the word "may" instead of "shall" and, above all, by introducing the words
restricting the employment of women in offices after childbirthmy right hon. Friend will be given power in making regulations to provide different treatment for different circumstances. He might, for instance, decide to make less provision for people employed on light work than on other forms of work. He would certainly insert in the regulations the word "knowingly" which is in the Factories Act.Therefore, the words of the Amendment would meet the situation properly, and would not be open to the fears of my hon. Friend; but, of course, the Amendment is still open to the objection that I raised originally, in that we are incorporating in a Bill of this nature something which, as I am advised, properly should be incorporated in due course in public health legislation. The hon. Member would not accept my advice, because he said that he would like to have it now rather than wait for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. It is up to my hon. Friend to decide what to do, but, if it 1733 is to be in this form, I would advise him that the words in the Amendment are the best way of doing this.
§ Mr. DoughtyBefore my right hon. Friend sits down—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerOrder. The hon. and learned Member has already exhausted his right to speak. Amendment proposed—
§ Mr. Dudley WilliamsOn a point of order. My hon. and learned Friend's intention was not to make a speech, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. With great respect—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to speak again.
§ Mr. DoughtyFurther to that point of order. I was not intending to speak again.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThen perhaps the hon. and learned Member will resume his seat.
§ Mr. DoughtyOn a point of order.
§ Mr. G. Thomas (Cardiff, West) rose—
§ Mr. DoughtyIs it not in order to ask a question of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary by using the phrase "Before my right hon. Friend sits down—"? I waited until he had concluded his speech?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe hon. and learned Member has not that right.
§ Mr. G. ThomasOn a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Member to question a Ruling of the Chair on questions of this sort? Surely, the hon. and learned Member has been here long enough to know that?
§ Mr. DoughtyI am not questioning your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in any way at all. I was told that I had exhausted my right to speak. I have spoken once on this Amendment, and did not wish to speak again. I was only exercising what I understand is the right of an hon. Member to put a question to the Minister.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerWhen a Minister has finished a speech it is not a right of hon. Members to get up and question him.
§ Major Hicks Beach rose—
§ Mr. C. PannellOn a point of order. Do I not understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you were putting the Question at that point, and that you were interrupted by what afterwards proved to be an unruly intervention, against which you ruled? Therefore, I should like to ask if the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) is in order in intervening when you were, in fact, on your feet putting the Question.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI had not completed putting the Question, and the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham is entitled to speak.
§ Dr. Edith Summerskill (Warrington)Further to that point of order. I was also under the impression that you were putting the Question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and as there have been so many contributions from the other side of the House, I certainly would have wanted an opportunity to speak on the point. If we are to have everyone from that side who wants to speak and no one from this side, I shall have to demand that I should have the right to speak, if you are not now about to put the Question.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI cannot put the Question if an hon. Member, who is entitled to, gets up to speak.
§ 2.15 p.m.
Major Hicks BeachI assure the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), speaking I think for everybody on this side of the House, that we should very much appreciate a contribution from her, if you saw fit to call her, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. One of the features of this debate has been what little contribution has been made on this very important matter from the other side of the House.
I strongly advise my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment, because under the Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, Clause 2 reads at the moment:
The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing the period after childbirth during which a woman shall not be employed in an office.If the Amendment is accepted, that will be changed to read:(2) the Secretary of State may provide by regulations for restricting the employment of women in offices after childbirth.1735 That is an improvement. I personally think that, as has been pointed out by a number of my hon. Friends, legislation of this nature, as we all agree, is very important. The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has read out part of the Gowers Report, which is very important. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Minister said—that matters of this nature should be dealt with through the medium of public health legislation and not piecemeal in a Bill of this nature.To get the best we can in the Bill, I hope that my hon. Friends will accept the Amendment. I do not like it a bit, but it is better than what is in the Bill at the moment. When the Bill goes to another place, though I do not recall a Private Member's Bill having so many Amendments to it, no doubt very careful consideration will be given to this point, which is one of fundamental importance, and one that is certainly appreciated by everyone on this side of the House.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 15, leave out "Act" and insert "section".
§ In line 25, leave out "Act" and insert "section".
§ In line 28, leave out "Act" and insert "section".
§ In line 33, leave out "Act" and insert "section".—[Mr. J. Harvey.]
-
c1735
- Clause 2. —(EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AFTER CHILDBIRTH.) 13 words c1735
- Clause 4.—(DUTIES OF EMPLOYEES WITH RESPECT TO THINGS PROVIDED.) 16 words cc1735-7
- Clause 5. —(POSTING OF ABSTRACT OF ACT AND OF REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER.) 813 words cc1738-9
- Clause 7. —(ENFORCEMENT OF ACT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.) 454 words cc1739-63
- Clause 9. —(OFFENCES.) 9,211 words