HC Deb 06 March 1963 vol 673 cc480-91
Mr. Speaker

The next Amendment is in page 2, line 11. Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr. Winterbottom

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand, subject to your correction, that the Amendment in page 2, line 13, after "trade", insert "including mail order trade" standing in my name and in the names of two of my hon. Friends, will not be called. In view of the fact that the issue in the Amendment includes the question of mail order trade, which was not discussed in Committee, is it possible that the Amendment in my name, to the Minister's Amendment, may be called and discussed with the Amendment to which you have referred so that we may clarify the position of mail order business?

Mr. Speaker

There are two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). I do not propose to select the second of them but I will call the first, which covers all of the points with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

Mr. Whitelaw

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 19 and to insert: (ii) a building or part of a building, being a building or part which is not a shop but of which the sole or principal use is the carrying on there of retail trade or business; (iii) a building occupied by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale to persons resorting thereto or a part of a building so occupied where goods are so kept; (iv) a building to which members of the public are invited to resort for the purpose of delivering there goods for repair or other treatment or of themselves there carrying out repairs to, or other treatment of, goods or a part of a building to which members of the public are invited to resort for that purpose; (v) any premises (in this Act referred to as "fuel storage premises") occupied for the purpose of a trade of business which consists of or includes the sale of solid fuel, being premises used for the storage of such fuel intended to be sold in the course of that trade or business, but not including premises which constitute, or are comprised in, premises to which certain provisions of the Factories Act 1961 apply by virtue of section 125 (1) (docks, etc.) of that Act; and It may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if with this Amendment we discuss the Amendments in page 2, leave out lines 24 to 26, and insert: and (c) 'solid fuel' means coal, coke and any solid fuel derived from coal or of which coal or coke is a constituent; and for the purposes of this Act premises occupied together with a shop or with a building or part of a building falling within sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (a) above for the purposes of the trade or business carried on in the shop or as the case may be the building or part of a building, shall be treated as forming part of the shop or, as the case may he, of the building or part of the building, and premises occupied together with fuel storage premises for the purposes of the activities there carried on (not being office premises) shall be treated as forming part of the fuel-storage premises, but for the purposes of this Act office premises comprised in fuel storage premises shall be deemed not to form part of the last-mentioned premises. In Clause 77, page 51, line 27, at end insert: fuel storage premises" has the meaning assigned to it by section 1 (3) (a) (v) of this Act and also, if you were agreeable, we could also discuss the proposed Amendment to this Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and others.

Mr. Speaker

Yes, if the House so wishes.

Mr. Whitelaw

These Amendments have some objects which I think will commend themselves to the House. First, there was a point raised in Committee by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) on the definition of shop premises. Shop premises other than shops are now defined in terms of a building or part of a building.

The object of this part of the Amendments is to make clear beyond any doubt that shop premises that form part of a larger building—for example, a private house—are covered by the definition. This was a point about which the hon. Members for Brightside and Bradford, South were anxious; and, in order to make sure that this point is covered, this Amendment was put down. We were of the opinion that the existing definition in the Bill included the premises which they had in mind. We are really moving the Amendment in order to put the matter beyond all possible doubt. I hope that the hon. Members concerned will feel that that is right.

Secondly, the addition in paragraph (iv) of the words or of themselves there carrying out repairs to, or other treatment of, goods is intended to cover such places as launderettes where, although people are normally employed, the washing of the clothes is carried out by the people who actually take them there. This is a point on which several hon. Members have written to me, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason).

Thirdly, the Amendments bring coal depots, which we now refer to as fuel storage premises, within the scope of the definition of shop premises. The expression "fuel storage premises" refers to the individual set of premises occupied by a coal merchant and there may, therefore, be a number of such premises within the area, commonly regarded as a coal depot. Most of the premises will be wholly in the open, but the definition includes any that are under cover, and also any huts or buildings other than office premises which are occupied together with the fuel storage premises for the purpose of the activities carried on there. The definition does not limit the premises to those on railway land, but excludes coal depots in docks and on canal wharves because these places are covered by the Factories Act.

Fourthly, the Amendment in page 2, to leave out lines 24 to 26 and to insert sub-paragraph (c) defines solid fuel in the same terms as the definition in the Sixth Schedule to the Weights and Measures Bill.

7.15 p.m.

May I now turn to the problem of mail order businesses, referred to in the Amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Oldham, East Brightside, and Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). The hon. Member for Oldham. East was good enough to send me a very full description of these premises, and I am extremely grateful to him for his courtesy in so doing. This matter has been considered very carefully and I am advised that the definition starting at line 11 on page 2—that is, subsection (3, a, ii). of Clause 1—even as modified in the Government Amendment will cover any premises where the sole or principal use is that of a mail order business. I know that the hon. Gentleman's object in putting down his Amendment was to get that assurance on the record, and I am glad to be able to give it to him.

The words which are relevant to this part of the Clause and which, indeed, remain unchanged, are: of which the sole or principal use is the carrying on there of retail trade or business". I am advised that these words cover a mail order business, and I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman concerned will be satisfied. I hope also that I have managed to explain the other Amendments.

Mr. Charles Mapp (Oldham, East)

I am indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for having included in his remarks a reference to mail order businesses. In a few months' time this Bill will be presented to town clerks and public health inspectors as an operative Act. The Town Clerk of Oldham may well have grave doubts about the mail order business and whether the Act will be clear to those who have to interpret it. When I refer to the mail order business I am excluding the clerical element of it, and devoting my remarks to the packing side, in which two-thirds of the employees are engaged.

It is my view that the mail order business is an innovation, in the sense that it does not fall neatly into the normal descriptions of either retail or wholesale business. I take the view that the average man would say that it is neither. It is a new form of business. Let me describe, for the benefit of hon. Members who are not familiar, what takes place. A mail order firm recruits, on a commission, agents all over the country. The agent is usually a private citizen and she encourages clients to join her club as she calls it, consisting usually of about twenty people. Having encouraged those clients, she then, on behalf of the mail order firm, distributes a catalogue, and that is the only basis of sale. The catalogue is presented to and received by her customers or clients, and the sale of whatever it may be is on the basis of what is in the catalogue.

As a rule, the agent informs the mail order business of her 20 customers, but there is at no point any invitation of any kind or any inference that the goods may be seen at any point. There is no invitation whatever such as one would expect in a retail business. It is done entirely on the catalogue.

In Oldham, there are half a dozen mills concerned, employing between 3,000 and 4,000 people. The trade is even more extensive in Liverpool and in Manchester. It is equally extensive in Wigan and in Bolton. Whatever we may think about it, this is a developing trade.

The major sources of supply for the mail order firms are congregated at the stock warehousing point. In Oldham there are six mills, and in Bolton also there are some mills. On receipt of the individual orders, the packing staff break down the stock, and it is then packed and handed over to the railways or the Post Office for transmission in the ordinary way. It may go either to the ultimate buyer or to the agent. I understand that the agent is not responsible for any bad debts.

The point I make is that the thousands of people employed in this business need the reassurance of words in the Bill that they are covered.

In Oldham—the situation could be reproduced in many other Lancashire towns —mail order businesses occupy five large warehouses, three of them of six floors and two of five floors. They are not small places at all. There is a total staff of 2,500. Of these, 974 are clerical, and they are covered by the Bill in any case. The remaining 1,500 are engaged on the packing processes, and it is here that the Bill is doubtful in its application. There are roughly 974 male workers and 1,500 females.

I have had from the Minister a clear and courteous letter, now confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary, to the effect that he regards workers in mail order businesses as covered by what he proposes. However, this will be of no avail to a diligent local authority—the problem arises in an area where this legislation is overwhelmingly required—which, in its efforts to apply the intention of the Bill in a few months' time, takes the matter to a court of law. In the Lancashire towns there are serious fire risks in all sorts of mill buildings. This is one of the uses to which the mills have been put, and we welcome it, but we wish to make quite certain that legislation passed by the House is clearly seen by laymen to be applicable to what goes on in those premises.

In view of what has been said, the Minister will, I appreciate, find it difficult to go back on his statement and say that he is prepared to consider the matter again. He has assuredly said that these premises are legally covered. However, I beg him to consider what may happen in 12 months or so when well-intentioned public health officers or town clerks, anxious to give guidance locally, have to consider how the Bill applies to the facts as they find them. These gentlemen are not constantly coming down to London or elsewhere for legal and other advice. This new and extensive form of trading does not fit happily within the normal conception of retail and wholesale business.

I suggest that, if he can do nothing now, the Minister ought to consider, as the Bill goes further, whether some form of words—mine may not be quite right—can be written into the Bill to put beyond any doubt or ambiguity that these workers are covered. When I speak of these workers, of course, I quite appreciate that the clerical workers are already included. I have in mind the packing staff who constitute two-thirds of the people employed in these premises.

Mr. Farr

The large-scale change in Clause 1 (3) gives me an opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend whether he could settle a doubt which arose in Standing Committee and which was never satisfactorily dealt with. Do betting shops fall within the scope of the Clause? In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) raised the question of betting shops and asked the Parliamentary Secretary for his views. He was supported by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who said that, in his view, betting shops quite clearly came within the scope of the Clause.

I have taken the trouble to look for a definition of "shop". I have referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Mr. Whitelaw

Perhaps I can save my hon. Friend's time. Betting shops are offices. Therefore, as offices, they come within the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend will think that his further intervention is no longer necessary.

Mr. Farr

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. He said in Committee that he had not at that time formed an opinion. I am very glad that he is now able to give us the benefit of that information.

Mr. Winterbottom

I stress the need for putting in the Bill something which will clearly cover mail order stores. I still believe that the text of the Bill as we discussed it first in Committee covered mail order stores. I consider that the text now suggested in the proposed substitution will not cover mail order stores. It is essential that there should be no shadow of doubt whatever that mail order stores are covered.

The office workers in mail order stores are covered already, so we leave those out of consideration at this point. Should mail order stores be regulated as retail, wholesale or office premises? I understand that retail distribution is the business of selling goods in small quantities, taking goods from the bulk and making sales in small units. The trade has to be done directly with the customer.

I gather that there are many references to this question in the legal textbooks and many cases have come before the courts where the nature of the sale to the customer has been the direct link in defining what is or what is not retail distribution. If a mail order business is conducted by means of a catalogue being sent directly to a customer, then I believe that that makes it a retail distributing firm. But a third person intervenes here. Instead of going direct to the customer, the catalogue goes to an agent who conducts the business for the firm directly with the customer. Therefore, the definition of "retail distribution" does not apply. Because this business is carried on in small units as distinct from wholesaling in bulk, mail order firms cannot be covered by the definition of "wholesaling" as it is in the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that his legal advisers are clear on this matter. But it is not what he has said in Committee or here today which counts. What counts in a court is the text in the Act. Magistrates and judges will not consider what the Parliamentary Secretary has said in justification of his belief that mail order stores are covered by this legislation. They will look at the cold letter of the Act. There should be a closer examination of this matter. I believe that the old text of the Bill would have covered mail order firms. I believe that the new text proposed today by the Parliamentary Secretary creates a larger and much more dangerous loophole than the text which we had in Committee. I therefore ask that the position of mail order concerns be reconsidered.

Mr. Whitelaw

I have only stated what I have been advised is the position. I am the first to appreciate the limitations of the wording and I would not seek to put a greater construction on it than is justified. Having heard the arguments of the hon. Members for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom)—and I know that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) holds the same view—it would be churlish if I did not say that we will carefully reconsider the matter. We want to be careful that we do not put words into an Act which are not necessary. There will be an opportunity in another place to return to what I accept as a new and very important point. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

Mr. Hale

I am not quite satisfied with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and I should like to add a few sentences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has served the House and Oldham very well by tabling his Amendment. He has presented the case for it with great clarity. Naturally, he described the situation in Oldham where several thousands of workers are affected by this matter, and he devoted his attention principally to that. The business of mail order not only affects many parts of Lancashire but is spreading to many other places. Trade and economic experts think that this process will expand. hope that tomorrow morning I shall receive a pork pie in the post from someone in Leicestershire, because I was born in Leicestershire and I like Leicestershire pork pies. A very substantial trade is carried on in food and it may be extremely important that it should be expanded.

I should like to say this in addition to the cogent points which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East made. He described this practice in great detail and with great lucidity. Some of these companies advertise on the basis that one deals directly with the wholesaler. This is not the case with Oldham companies as far as I know, but in other places advertisements are issued saying. "Buy your stuff at wholesale prices. Get your stuff by post direct from the manufacturers" In many cases, the manufacturers have taken over concerns for the purpose of distribution. One factory in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East is engaged in packaging things for export. It makes nothing. The merchandise is made in another factory many miles away, but it employs many people who are engaged in packaging.

I suggest that the Minister has got it wrong. There is no objection to including additional words in a Statute. The objection is to leaving them out. The rule of ejusdem generis is being applied with increasing strictness. The Parliamentary Secretary may know that day after day judges are saving with increasing pain, "Why will not Parliament say what it means?" Day after day courts of three judges are wondering whether tinned salmon is fish or whether salmon cakes are fish cakes. The Minister says. "We do not want to put in extra words if they are not necessary". But my hon. Friend has drafted his Amendment with complete correctitude. The only reservation that I have—and I am sure my hon. Friend will not mind my saying this—is that I wonder whether on the whole it is better to call these premises shops or to treat them as industrial premises generally, because some provisions do not apply to shops but do apply elsewhere. All that the Amendment proposes is that the words "including retail trade" should be put in the Bill. What harm can that do? What possible mistake can arise from that? Why is there a curious tendency against a little additional clarity being put in a particularly obscure Bill which is not notable for the perfection of its English?

The Minister should reconsider this matter. He has treated the House fairly and generously and we have been ready to accept his assurances. However, he has more faith in another place than I have. Unless the Government take action on this in another place, perhaps no one else will. This is a matter of vital importance to a growing industry.

I hope that I shall be forgiven for repeating a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East because it is important. This mail order business is being carried on in old, and often very old, industrial premises which were constructed for a wholly different purpose and which are being rapidly adapted to accommodate increasing numbers of workers. I therefore suggest to the Minister that the Amendment is really important, and I say to him with absolute sincerity that I cannot think of any reason why it should not be accepted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East referred to the Town Clerk of Oldham and to town clerks generally who have to decide whether a prosecution should go before the courts. There is a phobia in many town halls about bringing unsuccessful litigation. If there is a doubt about the matter, if there is the possibility of appeal and if the authorities may be landed with great expense in order to ascertain whether Clause 1 means this or that, it is likely that no action will be taken; it will not be worth the worry or the trouble. Unless the Minister has any intrinsic objection to the Amendment, I should have thought that, on reflection, he could accept it. Certainly the matter should not go by default. It would be serious if words were left out thereby omitting the whole of a great and growing industry.

Mr. Graham Page

I intervene briefly only because there is a large mail order business in my constituency. I should not like to think that the speeches which have been made today are any criticism of the admirable way in which the mail order business is run. From experience, I know that staff conditions and safety precautions in the mail order business in my constituency which I have in mind are thorough and good, but that is no reason why such businesses should receive any exemption from the Bill. I am sure that they would not wish to receive exemption. They conduct their business very well and would, I am sure, like to be included within the Bill the same as every other shop and business premises. I am inclined to think that it would be as well if my hon. Friend reconsidered the matter to make it clear that these concerns are included.

Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)

For similar reasons. I, too, consider that there is more reason why we should make certain that mail order businesses are included than many other premises. One in my constituency is in an old cotton mill, where probably four times as many people now work in the mail order business as worked there when it was a cotton mill. It is extremely important that matters such as fire precautions, to which the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) referred, should be thorough and efficient.

In the premises which I have in mind, and which I visited at Christmas, I was very impressed by the fire precaution arrangements that were made and I should be happy to think that they were as good in many other places. Nevertheless, it is most important that there should not be any doubt that mail order businesses are included within the Bill.

I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether any case affecting mail order business has been heard in the courts in which the court has laid down that such a business was covered by the same set of words as is used in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman can instance a court decision, that, obviously, would be something that the House could accept. It cannot, however, accept merely the hon. Gentleman's assurances on the subject, which have no standing in the courts.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted.

Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) move his Amendment?

Mr. Mapp

I am in some doubt, but in the light of the words used by the Parliamentary Secretary, with reservations and in view of the fact that there has been an appeal from all sides of the House to the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is not, in fact, moving it.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, leave out lines 24 to 26, and insert: and (c) 'solid fuel' means coal, coke and any solid fuel derived from coal or of which coal or coke is a constituent; and for the purposes of this Act premises occupied together with a shop or with a building or part of a building falling within sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (a) above for the purposes of the trade or business carried on in the shop or as the case may be the building or part of a building. shall be treated as forming part of the shop or, as the case may be, of the building or part of the building, and premises occupied together with fuel storage premises for the purposes of the activities there carried on (not being office premises) shall be treated as forming part of the fuel-storage premises, but for the purposes of this Act office premises comprised in fuel storage premises shall be deemed not to form part of the last-mentioned premises."—[Mr. Whitelaw.]