HL Deb 24 June 1952 vol 177 cc356-84

3.3 p.m.

LORD CROOK rose to call attention to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee (The Gowers Committee Report) published in March, 1949, on Health, Welfare and Safety in Non-Industrial Employment and Hours of Employment of Juveniles (Cmd. 7664); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is exactly 150 years since legislation was first introduced to deal with the conditions under which work-people in this country performed their labours. I refer to the Morals and Health Act, 1802, which for the first time made provision in respect of ventilation and cleanliness in certain premises connected with employment and dealt with hours of labour of apprentices. In the years that followed, the lot of those who worked in mine and quarry and in the new factories which were replacing home work was made better as the result of the work of a distinguished member of your Lordships' House of those days, Lord Ashley, who was responsible for the factory inspectorate, and by the work of various Commissions, for which Robert Owen was responsible.

To come to more modern times, at the beginning of this century there were legislation and regulations dealing with cleanliness, ventilation and arrangements for fire escape for all workers in factories, while women and children working in factories had their working hours, their mealtimes, their holidays and overtime controlled by law. Yet at this very day there is no provision in respect of legal standards for offices. A limited number of office owners provide accommodation so excellent that we could never hope in any Act of Parliament to lay down standards of such excellence, but in the main the general standards are deplorable.

For some thirty years many of us in the trade union movement, through the National Federation of Professional Workers and the Trades Union Congress, have attempted to secure legislation to provide for the regulation of conditions in offices and in various other forms of employment. To that end, Private Members' Bills were presented in another place in 1924, 1929, 1933 and 1936. Broadly, on each occasion the Bill covered standards of lighting and heating, ventilation, cubic air space per person, general cleanliness of offices, provision of drinking water, provision of washing and sanitary arrangements and, in certain cases, canteen facilities. Control of underground premises and of fire escapes was also dealt with in the proposed measures, none of which, however, got beyond the Second Reading. The only enactments which office workers have beer able to rely upon in any way through the years have been the general Public Health Acts, which vary in their terms and application in London and the provincial areas of England and Wales, and in Scotland. These Acts make no special reference to offices, provide no standards for inspection and make no arrangements for special inspectors to be appointed. In fact, there has been little or no inspection of offices, and what there has been has been desultory and of little value.

For all these reasons, the trade union movement and the million people, approximately, who are concerned in the matters under consideration were delighted to note in 1946 the appointment of a distinguished Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers, whose Report forms the subject of the Motion which I now move. When looking at the Report, your Lordships will have noted that the terms of reference deal with features of the Shops Acts. These matters were dealt with in the Interim Report and I do not wish to say anything about them this afternoon. It is on the other two main issues dealt with in the Final Report that I venture to address your Lordships. The first section deals with the health, welfare and safety of persons other than those whose employment is regulated under the Fac- tories Act or Mines end Quarries Act. The second deals with statutory regulations of hours of employment of young persons. May I try to give your Lordships a brief picture of the background of both these problems?

As to the first section, I have already referred to the general lack of defined standards of regulation in respect of offices. In addition, there are some 500,000 employees of British Railways, many thousands of workers in road transport and many thousands of agricultural workers who are not covered. There are no regulations in respect of the fishing and shipping industries, or in the entertainment world. In addition, your Lordships may have been amazed to discover, when reading this Report, that a nation which can run a campaign urging catering workers to wash their hands scrupulously after every visit to a lavatory, and can spend money displaying metal notices on walls of catering establishments to that effect, has no provision whatsoever to make certain that water or the means to wash are provided in those establishments. As to the second section, the hours of young persons are regulated under the Mines and Quarries Acts, the Shops Act, 1934, the Factories Act, 1937, and the Employment of Young Persons Act, 1938. But there are tens of thousands of juvenile workers who are covered by no legislation at all.

Let me deal with the first section, and the evidence which was given to the Committee. That evidence showed the existence of very bad conditions in offices in general. As the Gowers Committee point out in their Report, to the extent the legislation exists to deal with this subject it is negative, rather than positive; or, to use the actual words of the Report: That is to say, an impression is created (rightly or wrongly) that all the owner, occupier, or employer has to do is to see that conditions are not so bad as to be a nuisance or actively prejudicial to health. The Committee go on to say: Local authorities have no power to intervene unless they are. The sanitary accommodation provided in factories to which the Factories Acts are applicable, as the Gowers Committee point out, is not such as should be regarded by anyone as satisfactory in all places and for all times. But the Committee go on to add that, so far as offices are concerned, there is a long way to go to reach even that standard. Washing facilities are poor or, in some cases, non-existent.

Heating, particularly in the older offices, is the subject of constant difficulties. Some of the offices which I have visited do not suffer from inadequate heat in the winter as much as they otherwise would, because the overcrowding of persons in badly ventilated rooms creates a warmth which, even if deplorable, is at least better than that provided by any heating installed in the offices. The absence of natural light is bad enough, but in many of the offices devoid of natural light the standard of electrical or gas lighting provided is also low. While canteens have been provided by those more progressive employers to whom I have referred, in the main there is no such provision for office workers, as there is for manual workers. But there are tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of manual workers who are not covered by any of these enactments, including agricultural workers and railway workers. The need for better heating, lighting, sanitation and washing facilities, lockers and mess-rooms, and for the provision of first aid is great, even in the railway service to-day.

Apart from the justified general complaints in the evidence given to the Gowers Committee, reference was made to the special complaints which had to be made about the dangers to be found in the running sheds—that is to say, sheds where coaling, washing and greasing of engines, cleaning of boilers by jets of high-pressure steam, and the removal of large parts of machinery all take place. Here, with poor lighting, the danger is made the greater by the smoke and steam in the atmosphere and by the accumulation on the floors of hot ashes taken from the boilers. Indeed, the Railway Executive agreed, when they gave evidence to the Gowers Committee, that when they took over the sheds from the former companies many of them were completely out of date. The Gowers Committee, as your Lordships will have seen from the Report, were surprised, as I imagine most of your Lordships were, to learn that apparently it had never occurred to the railway managements to secure that running hot and cold water was provided, in order that the men engaged on this kind of dirty work could have the opportunity of washing before going home.

The messroom accommodation for many of these railway workers consists of an old railway coach "dumped" on the side of the line. It could have been "dumped" there only because it was of no further use, and because it had probably already done about fifty years' hard work running on the tracks. A visit to one of these messrooms is a revelation. Your Lordships do not need me to describe the state of the woodwork that has already survived fifty years of work running on the track. You will know that the roof is low. But picture that building—if that is the right word to use—used as a messroom for the whole of the twenty-four hours of the day, with a stove alight in it continuously, wet clothes hanging on pegs on the wall, shunters stamping in and out with wet and muddy boots. That is the kind of picture which, with others in the trade union movement. I saw when I visited a messroom of railway workers. Your Lordships who prize horses and cows would not dream of keeping them in the sort of conditions in which these men have had to spend part of their livelihood-earning time. It is conditions of this kind that make for bad relationships between the two sides of industry and which are the fertile ground for Communist agitators.

The same kind of comment applies to the general conditions of the men who are sent away for ordinary night transfer to live away from home while working on the railways. The picture which emerged when the Gowers Committee were hearing evidence was one of dirty, overcrowded hostels, lacking the most elementary sanitary arrangements and amenities. I want to say, in fairness to the Railway Executive, that, as I have already indicated, they knew they had inherited difficulties; and, of course, this evidence was given to the Committee not long after their inheritance. In the time that has passed, with the co-operation of the unions, the Executive have done as much as they can to get improvements made. But there remains very much more to be done and, as I submit to your Lordships this afternoon, the crying need is for the setting down of some standard towards which the country must work.

Much the same kind of story could be told about road transport and the running sheds which are used. The lack of facilities for drying the constantly wet clothes of men engaged on washing vehicles can be imagined, but it needs to be seen. Men put on clothes already wet or damp when they arrive to do their day's work. I wonder sometimes what is the use of our running a National Health Service, and what is the use of us having debates about getting the maximum number of people deployed from our manpower for the production of the needs of this country, if all the time we are failing to take steps of this kind in order to secure the better health of those who work to help this country. Nor are there any enforceable standards of ventilation or fume extraction in these road transport sheds. Most people who look at garages built in the years before the war will know that insufficient attention was paid to ventilation. Ordinary roof ventilation is not good enough for this kind of work. The fumes of petrol lie low, and many of the men are working either lying or the floor or even under the floor level in pits. Even the modern oil exhaust, while not so dangerous as petrol exhaust, contaminates the air by the removal of oxygen and makes for very bad conditions for the men. In the post-war world, and to a limited extent before and during the war, the adaptation of tram depôts and trolley bus stables for the care and maintenance of motor buses has presented a new problem, because buildings which were constructed in relation to an electrical method of propulsion now have to deal with vehicles using the dangerous gases to which I have referred.

One of the greatest shocks that I ever had while looking at the conditions under which workers perform their work during the whole of the last thirty years was on a visit to the catering establishments—but on the workers' side, instead of on the side to which we are normally accustomed. I want to use careful language. I know that there are many good places, and I should not like any words of mine to be used to condemn them. But I also know that there are these very deplorable examples in the catering industry. Again, it would be wrong of me to take advantage of a position in this House to name any of those organisations or establishments in the West End of London. But the conditions in some of those places are of vital concern, not only to the workers in the industry but to the customers and the public at large, in the interests of public health. I suggest to your Lordships that there must be hot and cold water in proper washing places for those who work in preparing and cooking our food. There must be adequate lavatory accommodation, and that must be well away from the kitchens. Above all, there must be provision for keeping the clothes in which they work in good, proper and clean condition. Nearly every employee working in the catering industry wears some clothing on duty which is not normally worn in traveling to work. The dreadful experience I had in a well-publicised restaurant was to see the waiters' suits hanging on nails on the walls around W.C.s, from which came smells which did not make me feel that I should ever again want to be waited upon in that organisation by any member of the waiting staff.

But what is more, in catering establishments the development of mechanisation has again gone on apace, and in kitchens to-day there are many cutting knives and machines which can crush and hurt, in respect of which there is no provision of safety rules whatsoever. The Committee have made some recommendations which go a good deal of the way to meet many of these matters. I am not going to say that all their recommendations are adequate. I regret some of the things which they leave out. I am not disposed at this stage, however, to argue what the standards should be. I am concerned only to argue on this occasion that there should be early legislation.

I know that we are suffering from a post-war problem. We cannot, as it were, by the waving of a fairy wand put right the ills of the whole of this century; but some time, somewhere, we must make a start. I know that the building of all the necessary sanitary accommodation would not be possible at once. I know that, in any case, a great deal of this would not be economically possible. The choice before the Home Office last year, as I understand it, was whether, in face of these difficulties, nothing should be done until conditions were easier, or whether an attempt should be made forthwith to set down standards towards which this country should work. In the discussions which the Home Office had with the Trade Union Congress and other bodies, it was believed that the situation was fast emerging where, by the end of last year, details of the legislation would be available. We have been content to be patient, to wait to give the new Government a chance of getting into the saddle before putting down any Motion or pressing the Government for any statement. I now want to urge the Government to tell us when we may expect the legislation, and whether the discussions which were going, on last year between the Home Secretary, the T.U.C., the National Federation of Professional Workers and others will be resumed at an early date.

I should like to turn for a few minutes to the second section of the Report, dealing with the hours of employment of juveniles. I have already indicated that the weakness of the present legislation is the limitation of its scope. There are broad groups of young employees who are not covered by any enactment. About 35 per cent. of juveniles in this country are outside any legal restrictions or provisions. What is more, the position under the present Acts produces anomalies of all kinds. May I give your Lordships one or two examples? Two young persons may be employed in the same business, one being inside the scope of legislation and the other not. The Shops Act, for instance, applies to any young person in the clerical business of a retail shop, whether the office is inside the shop or outside. But if he is employed in the office of a wholesale shop, and he is outside the premises of the shop, then the Act does not apply. Similarly, a young railway worker working in a railway workshop would come under the Factories Act. On the other hand, if he happened to work in the running sheds, to which I have already referred, he would not come under the Act, because the Act does not cover those sheds. A young dental mechanic employed in a dental workshop is covered by the Act, but if he does the same kind of work for a private dental operative then he is not covered.

These anomalies could be multiplied again and again, and I do not want to detain your Lordships by detailing them. They were recognised as long ago as 1937 when the Departmental Committee on the Hours of Employment of Young Persons presented their Report. They said: We are impressed by the difficulties and anomalies which arise from the present practice of dealing with young persons in groups according to the nature of their employment and in distinguishing, for example, between those employed in factories, in shops and in street trading. The Committee went on to urge Parliament to consider making general regulations about the hours of work and conditions of employment of school leavers. In general, I think it would be true to summarise by saying that the Gowers Committee Report of 1949 picks up where the Departmental Committee left off in 1937. The Gowers Committee say: It is incumbent upon the State to protect adolescents, so far as it is within its power, from conditions of employment that might impair their moral and physical development. I am glad to say that the Committee go on to make proposals which would bring about 92½ per cent. of the juveniles in this country under a statutory code, as compared with only 65 per cent. under such a code at the moment.

We welcome the proposals of this Report, although we do not think they go far enough. The Committee recommend a 45-hour week; we should have thought a 40-hour week was right. They recommend a 9-hour day; we should have thought an 8-hour day was right. They recommend an 11-hours maximum period of employment from start to finish, continuous spells of work being limited to 4½ hours. Their recommendation that there should be a night interval of 12 hours is good, so far as it goes. But the general view of the trade unions—a view which I share—is that no juvenile should start work before 8 o'clock in the morning or work after 6 o'clock at night. They should have their evenings free, and they should get their sleep at the right time. Similarly, we believe that a 5-day week is a right policy for juveniles, and not the 5½-day recommended by the Committee. They should have two completely free days in which to get the atmosphere of the office or the factory away from them. They should get a chance to get out into the fresh air, to take part in sports, and also to take part in Sunday worship—leading, that is to say, the kind of life which young people ought to be able to lead. This, my Lords, is the critical section of the community. It is from this constant supply of 1,500,000 juveniles in this country that we have to get, first of all, our strong effectives for the Armed Forces and, even more important, our strong effective personnel for use in the production of the goods which we in this House are always encouraging the people to produce.

The fact that I venture to offer these limited criticisms should not prevent my saying that there are many propositions in this Report of great value. I need refer, for instance, only to the recommendations about the prohibition of the employment of women both before and after childbirth, and the numerous other valuable propositions which the Committee make. But I note that I have already occupied your Lordships' time for far too long—perhaps a little longer than I had anticipated. Let me say this in my defence: first, that I have touched on only a few of the problems dealt with in this Report; and, secondly, that I have occupied this rather longer time on the encouragement of certain noble Lords. This motion was transferred suddenly from next week's Order Paper to that for this week, and this has meant that a number of noble Lords who last week gave notification of their intention to intervene and to deal with various sections of the recommendations have been unable, at such short notice, to address your Lordships this afternoon. I therefore express my regret for having kept your Lordships for so long—but I do not express regret for having moved the Motion, for this matter is one of grave importance to the country. It is of importance not only to the workers concerned but also to the maintenance of good relations between the two sides in industry and the encouragement of production and morale. That being so, I hope the afternoon will not have been wasted and that we shall hear from the noble and learned Lord who is to reply for the Government some indication of the possibility of early legislation and of an early resumption of the discussions with the parties interested.

3.35 p.m.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

My Lords, the path of the reformer is hard and his journey is slow. This is evidenced by the fact that the Gowers Report was pub- lished in March, 1949, and that the previous Government took no steps in the matter. The present Government seem to be overwhelmed with questions of a general character, but I hope that as a result of this debate we shall hear that they are prepared to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. I have been interested in this problem from childhood. I was brought up in the Potteries at a tune when there was a terrible amount of lead poisoning. We must bear in mind that reforms and efforts for reform are not the prerogative of any particular Party in the State; they are the prerogative of all Parties and all people, irrespective of Party and quite independent of Party. I remember the reforms in the Potteries when I was a boy, leading to the prevention of lead poisoning and the introduction of measures to enable the workers to rid themselves of this poisonous mineral and eventually to compel the use of leadless glazes. That reform was the result of the work of Millicent, Duchess of Sutherland, a noble Lady who I am glad to say is still alive to-day to enjoy reflections on the success of her endeavours. It is true that she earned the sobriquet of "Meddlesome Millie," but she gladly accepted that sobriquet because she was successful in her mission.

At a later stage in my career I came in on the tail of the Factories Act; and in the great industrial centre of Manchester I saw the results of inadequate protection from machinery. I shall never forget the first case of scalping I saw come into the accident room at the Manchester Royal Infirmary. Scalping, of course, is caused by a person's hair being caught in a revolving band. I read recently, in a book on the history of the Manchester Royal Infirmary which will be published in a week or two, that the efforts made to introduce safeguards to prevent the entanglement of people's hair or clothing in revolving wheels or bands were not political efforts, but were the efforts of the medical profession in Manchester in those days.

I find myself speaking early in this debate because, as I informed the noble Lord who introduced the Motion, I have to leave the House early. I regret, therefore, that I shall not be able to hear the Lord Chancellor's statement on what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take concerning this Report. But I shall read with great interest the noble and learned Lord's remarks. What the Gowers Report really boils down to is this: it urges that provisions of the Factories Act of 1937 should be applied to other employments, such as those carried out in shops, offices, catering establishments and other employments not covered by the Act. The need for some of those provisions, such as those relating to adequate sanitary provision, is too obvious to require labouring. Personally, I think that the Factories Act, as the Gowers Report emphasises, was inadequate in suggesting one convenience to twenty-five persons. A figure between the fifteen that is suggested and the twenty-five which is the law is more suitable. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned lighting. A tremendous amount of research is being done to discover the best lighting for work in offices and other establishments. I submit that all that is required is some legislation to give powers to competent authorities to lay down regulations, and to arrange for some central coordination from Whitehall. A host of conditions have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crook: working in underground rooms, working in temperatures which are unsuitable, perhaps too hot, and working there for too long a period. With modern science and ventilation and thermostatic control of heating, it is comparatively easy for regulations to be introduced and complied with to overcome these disadvantages.

When commissioned by an anxious spouse to bring something home for dinner, as most of your Lordships are to-day, I have often called at an open-fronted shop and been bewildered to know why the assistants there should work on a wretched day in the open air. The provision counters of the great stores are not practically out in the street. Such conditions of work seem to me unsuitable and liable to lead to a breakdown in health. But the most important of all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, in regard to provision shops and catering establishments was the need for the protection of food, the cleanliness of the worker, the cleanliness of the premises, and the facilities and inducements for the worker to keep himself properly clean. I think we have much to learn from our friends across the Atlantic in the handling of food and the arrangements in catering establishments.

Another point raised by the noble Lord was the question of clothing. In catering establishments particularly the clothing of the workers is sometimes almost nauseating, even when they are functioning in the restaurant. It would be better if they had to come on parade in white coats and white aprons, as some noble Lords know better than I do happened in France in the old days (and I hope the practice still persists). I think that half a tablecloth as an apron is better than an old dress-suit dripping with grease and obviously never having been properly cared for or cleaned. There is the question of the drying of clothing for those who arrive at their work perhaps saturated with rain. As regards seating, I hold strong views. In all legislation up to date, I think the only provision in regard to seating has been that there shall be somewhere for the opposite sex to sit down. What about the veins and circulation of what are known as the stronger sex? Their veins are not any stronger, and they ought to have opportunities to sit down just as the women have.

The noble Lord also pointed out that there are many machines in establishments which are not covered by the Factories Act. Some of those machines are dangerous and there ought to be insistence on the provision for first aid in establishments of that sort. The question of employment of women before and after childbirth is another point which the noble Lord raised. Whether employment should be permitted before childbirth is a difficult problem, because the views of the medical profession in that regard have changed drastically. In the old days a woman carrying a child was protected and told to rest. Now, if she is inclined to rest, the physician is much more likely to prescribe a course of exercises than to encourage her in laziness. Therefore working almost up to the time of childbirth may well be a healthy function. But going back to work too soon after childbirth is undoubtedly bad for the mother and bad for the child. Parliament in its wisdom has prescribed that maternity benefit should last for seven weeks after confinement. Surely it is not unreasonable to require that the mother should not return to work until the expiry of those seven weeks.

Another point in the Gowers Report concerns the question of weight-lifting. It is extremely difficult to legislate or lay down regulations about weight-carrying. Some of your Lordships may have travelled in the Orient and seen a lady's wardrobe trunk heaved on to the head of a Burmese lady, who walks across the street seeming quite content. So much depends on how the weight is carried. A girl in a shop fetching sample after sample for the discriminating buyer at a time when there is a buyers' market carries heavy weights in her outstretched hands. That imposes much more strain than the throwing of a bale of cloth over her shoulder or the carrying of it in some other way. At the same time it is advisable, particularly in the case of the young, that there should be a possibility of devising regulations which will prevent undue weight-lifting. I would press upon Her Majesty's Government that, instead of emulating the dilatoriness of their predecessors, they should introduce legislation giving powers to sanitary authorities to introduce regulations to implement many of the provisions of the Gowers Report. The sanitary authorities throughout the country, with the exception of the London County Council area, are mentioned as particularly suitable for this task. In London local government is rather complicated, and until it is revised it may well be that the London County Council should be the authority. I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that this Report should be implemented, and I suggest that all that is required is that powers should be given to competent authorities.

3.50 p.m.

LORD WISE

My Lords, I think we can all agree that we have heard some interesting speeches on the Gowers Report. My noble friend Lord Crook covered a large number of the points, and the subject matter dealt with in that Report, while the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, dealt with various matters connected with health which I am sure are most interesting to us. With your Lordships' approval, I propose to deal with that section of the Report which touches upon agriculture. Your Lordships may say that, whenever I get up to speak, I always speak about farming or agriculture, but this Report contains recommendations which I think we should consider and which should be implemented as soon as possible. We are all interested in this Report, and I am certain that it is desired on all sides, particularly with reference to the section with which I am going to deal, that action should be taken to bring its recommendations into operation at the earliest possible moment.

The agricultural recommendations of the Committee are very simple and short, and I think they are quite capable of being carried into effect. Although they may not be so comprehensive as some of us would wish, at any rate the whole of that section in the Report is written in language which everybody can understand. There the Committee deal with the difficulties; they set out the exact position as we find it at the present time, and they suggest various remedies which should be introduced. Those remedies have received the approval of the organisation connected with agricultural workers, and the men are certainly awaiting the day when the conditions suggested by the Gowers Report are brought about. That section of the Report is in three parts, and deals with three particular matters—namely, machinery, health and poisonous sprays. Your Lordships will remember that the Government have already dealt with the question of poisonous sprays and things of that sort, and I hope they are about to adopt other suggestions made in the Report.

The noble Lord who has just spoken, and also my noble friend Lord Crook, dealt with the question of health. I do not want unduly to touch upon that, so far as agriculture is concerned, but I want to deal with the question of machinery. Most of the accidents in agriculture are due to defective and—perhaps even more—to unguarded machinery. I think that something should be done at the earliest possible moment to put that matter right. The Gowers Report suggests that the difficulty of bringing the industry under the Factories Acts arises because there are so many smallholdings throughout the country on which only two or three men are employed. That may be so, but whether we be farmers or farm workers, we are all liable to accidents; and the fact that we are liable to accidents must, think, bring to our minds the need for the protection which the Gowers Report will, I hope, give us in the future. In the main, at the present time, agriculture does not come within the scope of the Factories Acts legislation. It is certainly an industry which it would be difficult to bring fully within the scope of those Acts, but at any rate there are points with which the Government can well deal by way of regulation, thereby giving us the assistance which we desire.

According to the Report, at the present time farm workers are working under two Acts which are practically obsolete—namely, the Threshing Machine Act of 1878 and the Chaff-Cutting Machines (Accidents) Act of 1897. I must say that machinery in agriculture has advanced far beyond that in existence when those Acts were put upon the Statute Book, and I think that by regulation we should make amendments to those Acts, if such be necessary. There is one point in regard to machinery of which I think we should take particular notice. I know that it is difficult, in regard to what is called mobile machinery (those machines which are used out in the fields), to give the workers a full measure of protection, but machinery which is more or less stationary in or around farm buildings should, so far as is possible, be made absolutely protective in regard to workers. I think it is a fact that there are now in operation on farms many stationary machines which are in no way safe, and which do not afford the protection to which the particular worker concerned is entitled.

I have a few figures which have been supplied by the National Union of Agricultural Workers. I think they may be known already to the Government, but they are most instructive. They show not only the number of accidents which have been reported over a given number of months but also how those accidents arose and the type of accident in which the men were involved. In regard to mobile and immobile machinery, in a period from January 1 to July 31, 1949, over 2,000 cases were reported to this particular organisation. I may say, in passing, that the number of cases which have to be dealt with amongst farm workers who are members of this Union during the course of the year number about 4,000. That is a large number. I believe that the membership of the Union is somewhere over 200,000. If you take 4,000 from one particular organisation, it is obvious that there are many thousands more accidents happening on the farms which are not reported to anyone at all. Of those 2,000-odd cases to which I have just referred, 600, or nearly one-third, were accidents with machines, 473 of them being in respect of mobile machines, of which a large number were encountered with tractors and similar petrol-driven machines.

I should like in passing, having mentioned the tractor, to ask the noble and learned Lord who will be replying to the debate whether or not it is incumbent upon the manufacturers of tractors and similar power-driven machines to provide a guard for the power take-off. In years gone by, on my own farm I used sometimes to drive a tractor, and I was in fear and trembling most of the time when the power take-off was in operation lest either my leg or my trousers should be caught up in some revolving machinery of some sort. There are hundreds of these tractors up and down the country, which have no sort of guard for the power take-off. That must be a source of great risk to the men who have to operate these machines. I should therefore like to ask the Government whether it is at the present time incumbent upon the manufacturer of these particular parts of the machines to provide a guard. If it is not, I think this matter should be taken up, that steps should be taken to ensure that such a guard should be provided, and that the owner of the machines should be compelled to fix this guard in order that his workers may be protected. That is only one small point in connection with the risks which are run by farm workers. All sorts of accidents happen, not only in the way I have mentioned, but with other vehicles—such as, for example, trailers. Tractors have been known to start when they ought not to do so, and men have been injured, sometimes through no fault of their own, solely because the machinery which they were operating had some defect or other.

In regard to accidents with non-mobile apparatus, which are very prevalent on farms, there is one particular type of accident which causes a considerable amount of trouble. On many farms use is made of a power-driven circular saw. Often these circular saws are not fitted with the protective devices they ought to have, and men are injured in the course of their work as a result. These are things which the industry looks to the Government to tackle as soon as possible. I know the difficulties which exist at the present time. If the implementation of the Gowers Report can be undertaken by the Government, I am certain that action will be welcomed, not only in regard to the recommendations about agriculture, but also on those matters mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crook.

There are just one or two other points which I should like to mention. The noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has spoken of trouble caused by heavy weights. The Committee do, in fact, touch upon the question of the weights of sacks. It is on record, I think, that a number of men are hurt inwardly—if I may put it that way—because they often have to lift very considerable deadweights. Although there has already been some move in the direction of lessening the weight of sacks of corn or other commodities, I suggest that, in the interests of the men, no sack of farm produce should exceed 1 cwt. in weight. At the present time, I believe, a sack of corn should not exceed 1 cwt. 1 qr. Inasmuch as most of the agricultural cereal products are sold by the hundredweight, it would be a simple thing—if the metric system is not to be adopted—to take 1 cwt. as a fixed standard weight. I think noble Lords who have had any experience in this direction will agree with me that a man can lift, say, a sack of potatoes weighing 1 cwt. far more easily than he can lift deadweights of corn which, perhaps, may amount to double as much. That is a matter which I think should be dealt with. I hope to see, in ten years' time, the standard farm weight of corn accepted as being 1 cwt. and no more.

There are several other points with which one would like to deal, and on one in particular I want to touch for a moment—that is, the question of bad lighting. It is mentioned, I think, in this Report. It is a fact that many accidents on farms occur as a result of bad lighting. In many cases the buildings are inadequately lit. If some representation can be made to the Government whereby it is ensured that the electricity which we hope will be spread over the countryside in the years to come will have to be connected with the farm-buildings, so that the lighting of such buildings will be improved, this will greatly benefit the men and girls who have to work in them.

In conclusion, I should like to say this. It is obvious from this Report, so far as it deals with agriculture—and it is also clear from the numbers of accidents which are reported as having occurred to agricultural workers—that the greatest possible care should be exercised on all sides. I therefore desire it to go out from this House to those engaged in agriculture and on the farms generally that, in dealing with machinery of any sort, the greatest possible care should be taken and every possible protective measure should be adopted. I am sure (and I think I can speak for all of us in saying this) that we do not want to impose irksome new restrictions upon farmers; but they, like employers of labour in other walks of life, have a duty to safeguard their employees on the land, who may be either men women. They have a duty to safeguard their employees operating mechanical implements or equipment of any kind. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take note of the Motion which is before the House to-day and in due time—in fact, I hope, in a short time—will be able to implement many of the very useful recommendations of the Gowers Committee.

4.8 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crook, in a speech to which I listened with very great interest and sympathy, has moved for Papers, and I suppose that the only Papers that will content him—in fact, he indicated as much—will be the draft of a Bill. But the Report itself commences with a paragraph on the economic setting, in which it says that: The gravity of Britain's economic difficulties … has imported a certain unreality into our proceedings. We are considering conditions of employment … at a time when the labour and materials necessary to improve them are not available. The Committee go on to say: We are considering the need for fresh legislation that could only be enforced by new or augmented inspectorates at a time when every available man and woman is wanted in productive employment. The conditions when those words were written were no worse than they are to-day. If the Government are prepared to legislate immediately in a comprehen- sive Bill along the lines recommended by this Committee, I should be much surprised, because I think it would be a mistake.

Moreover, this Report is extremely complicated—part of its interest is due to that fact—and before it is implemented by any form of legislation it must receive mature consideration. A period of nearly three years' gestation in the hands of the last Government will not lead anybody to expect a hasty delivery by this Government, which has had a short time, and a time of extreme difficulty, in which to consider it. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, said a good many things on which, clearly, he has made up his mind but on which I am not decided in my own mind. The Report is a very temperate one and leaves a good many things in the balance. I think it would be a great mistake to legislate in a hurry on the lines of what has been demanded, rather than to take a little longer to consider the facts disclosed by the Report and then legislate in a manner which is wise.

If I were to give precedence to the employments for legislation for the regulation of hours and conditions, I would put last outdoor employments and, next last, handicrafts. All other employments should take precedence above these. There is one class of employment, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, in which I have always been interested—namely, employment in shops. Anybody who is fairly frequently in shops, especially big stores, must have observed how often the people who serve look ill. It is not because the conditions are bad: indeed, often one knows that the conditions provided by these establishments are very good. I am certain—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, who I am sorry is not here now, will share my opinion—that it is largely because the people who serve in these shops never learn to stand properly. As a result, not only do they fatigue themselves but they get flat feet and indigestion, and suffer from many evils entirely due to the lack of proper education and training. In every employment, in my view, that is almost as important as the conditions of employment.

There is one point on which I differ from the Report and I am going to submit it now because I hope that it will receive some consideration when legislation is being considered. In paragraph 206 the argument, I think of the trade unions, was rather that it should be the aim of legislation to assure to juveniles during their formative years generous opportunities for development, by guaranteeing to them sufficient leisure for pursuing their individual interests in association with their fellows. The Report goes on to say, in paragraph 207, that one objection to this reduction of hours of young people was raised in the interests of the young employees themselves: It was represented to us that the prescription of shorter hours would lead to their exclusion from some industries or trades in which they now have the opportunity of obtaining permanent employment. I submit that there is another view in this matter. I am entirely in favour of any regulation that the Government think fit to make for shortening the hours of juvenile employees up to the age of seventeen, but after the age of seventeen I think regulation should cease, or very largely cease, and that young employees should be governed largely by the conditions of adult workers.

When I was a young man my parents sent me to a university. That was in the days when it was not very much in the fashion to go to a university. Therefore, one must imagine that parents who took that course thought their children might derive some benefit from it. I am convinced that some of the young men with whom I came into familiar contact in the university would have been very much better, and would have led happier and more useful lives, if they had never gone there. They were by no means the worst—in fact, perhaps, they were the most attractive and interesting—characters, but one thing they needed was steady discipline and steady hours of work. Not getting these things had a bad effect upon them. I am convinced that there are a large number of young men who would do much better when young if their development proceeded by their going into regular and steady work rather than by having a super-abundance of leisure and special concessions of hours. There is more to it than that: there is the spirit of emulation which young men feel when they work alongside men. I know that lads who went into offices at the age of seventeen and eighteen, who worked steadily alongside older men, have done much better and have had happier lives, and have received a better education than they might have had if they had worked special shorter hours. I am sure that a yard-stick of this sort does not do for every individual. Every case should be judged on its merits. Therefore, I hope the Government will take a little time to consider the Report.

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wise, will not mind my saying that I hope the Government do not introduce legislation about weights. When I had a farm I could only just lift a 1 cwt. sack. The men laughed at me, made me get out of the way, seized the sacks and threw them up on the carts. If legislation were enacted from this House, they might think that I was jealous, and had not taken their laughter in good part, so I hope that legislation will not be introduced on this subject.

4.20 p.m.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

My Lords, we must all be grateful to my noble friend, Lord Crook, for raising this important matter this afternoon. There seems to be substantial agreement among all who have spoken that new regulations covering a wide field will have to be brought in as soon as possible. It is not always possible to carry out legislation at the time one wishes, because the programme may be too full; but it has been made abundantly clear this afternoon—and it is certainly clear from the Report which we are now considering—that office standards at the present time are often deplorable, and that lighting, heating, ventilation, air space, cleanliness, and washing and sanitary arrangements are not by any means always up to standard. Of course, we all know that in many offices the standards in these respects are very high. However, we do not legislate for the good, but for those who fall below the proper levels which they should reach.

We have been told this afternoon, and it is true, that there are hundreds of thousands of workers in factories who are not covered by the present regulations. We have been told of bad accommodation for railway workers, and of how better standards should be set up. We have been told of bad standards in catering establishments, and the need for cleanli- ness and sanitary accommodation. It has been argued by my noble friend Lord Crook that this requires early legislation. Having been a practising doctor for some years, I have had sonic experience with regard to catering establishments of various kinds in London, and particularly in the West End. A doctor is a person who cannot be kept from seeing things. When a doctor is called in to an accident, or to a case of sickness in, say, a well-known club—not to see one of the members, but one of the club servants—the conditions behind the beautiful front premises are not disguised from him. I remember, not many years ago, going into one club which had a very good reputation and which had absolutely spotless front premises, and I was literally horrified by the filth of the rooms immediately behind in which the club servants were housed. How that could possibly be allowed by any sensible club secretary I cannot imagine; but it was so, and I called attention to it as being one of the causes of the sickness of the man I was called in to attend. There is a strong case for legislation.

I remember, too, on another occasion being brought into close contact with the conditions of kitchens of restaurants in the West End during the early part of the war. The matter arose, not from the point of view of sanitation, but from an abuse of the regulations with regard to the consumption of rationed food. It was alleged by waiters at a well-known restaurant that a gross misuse was being made of rationed food supplies; they wanted the matter investigated, and I was one of those who were asked to look into it. There was some abuse and, as a matter of fact, a deputation of the people who looked into the matter attended on a member of your Lordships' House, who was then in an official position, and put the case before him. In the course of the investigations I once again went behind the scenes, and I found that all was not so spick and span as it appeared to those who went in to late suppers or who engaged an expensive set of rooms. There is no doubt whatever that in places of that kind there is need for greater supervision to ensure that they are kept reasonably clean from the point of view of the employees, and also, incidentally, from the point of view of those who partake of food there.

I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson speak of his own experience. He said, quite rightly, that the Gowers Report boils down to the fact that the Factories Act should be applied over a larger field. There is no doubt about that, and I hope that we shall hear from the noble and learned Lord who is to reply that there is a possibility of this coming about in the not far distant future. The noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, suggested that legislation should be passed to give power to a Government Department to lay down regulations which could be made effective through the medium of local authorities. I noticed, also, that he approved of the proposal that there should be special regulations for women after childbirth, although he did not approve of the suggestion made by a previous speaker that there should be regulations providing for a woman to be absent from work before childbirth. Views on the subject of the hygiene of childbirth have, of course, changed, and are still changing. There is no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, again suggested, that it would be a good thing to give sanitary authorities greater powers of inspection. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, restricted his speech to one aspect of the agricultural industry, and there is no more important industry than that at the present time. I was interested, as I am sure all noble Lords were, to hear his statistics of the number of accidents to people using the machines. Frankly, I was glad to hear that the numbers are not so great as I had previously thought. But it is certainly necessary to consider the question of these accidents.

The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, approves of juvenile employment regulations up to the age of seventeen, but not afterwards. I am sorry that the noble Lord (he is no longer in the Chamber) did not amplify his statement on this point. After all, it depends upon what a young person is doing as to whether or not he or she should be subjected to regulations. I do not think that every kind of employment which comes under the scope of this Report can be dismissed simply by saying that after the age of seventeen all persons concerned shall be treated as adults. This is an important and urgent matter, and I trust that the noble and learned Lord who is to reply will be able to give some hope to the House, and to the country, of early legislation to enable the provisions of the Factories Act to cover a much wider field. I am sure that that will be to the benefit of the nation as a whole.

4.28 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)

My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has done us a valuable service by introducing this subject, and particularly in a speech so full of knowledge and interest, and so instinct with sympathy for his subject The interesting speech with which he initiated the debate has been followed by other informative and interesting speeches. That makes me regret the more that I shall, alas! have to disappoint those speakers who have expressed the hope that I, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, should be able to announce the early introduction of legislation to deal with this matter.

I do not think your Lordships will be too severe with me, or with Her Majesty's Government, if I just remind you of a few facts, which have, indeed, already been mentioned. It was on January 1, 1946, that the late Government—or rather the former Socialist Government—set up the Sir Ernest Gowers Committee to consider the questions now under debate. They considered the matter for over three years and presented their Report in March, 1949. The late Government—and by that I mean the immediately late Government—and its predecessor had that Report before them from March, 1949. until (I think it was) October, 1951; that is to say, for just over two and a half years. As your Lordships will have seen, the Report consists of 112 pages of closely printed matter, and ranges over an enormous variety of subjects, many of them of extreme complexity.

It was not quite fair of the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson—I am sorry to say it in his absence, but I am not criticising him severely—when he adjured Her Majesty's Government not to emulate the dilatoriness of their predecessors. I do not think that was quite fair to our predecessors, because, as I say, the matter was one of extreme complexity, and there is no doubt that during their term of office they did a good deal at an official level which consisted of gathering together a vast quantity of material. The result is that Her Majesty's present Government have to work not only upon the Gowers Report but on the great quantity of material which has been collected by their predecessors.

In those circumstances, I should be less than candid with your Lordships—and, let me say, I am always candid with your Lordships—if I held out any prospect of immediate legislation. But this I can say. If you wish me to say that I agree personally with most, if not all, of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, then I say so. Although I must add the caution that it has not been possible for Her Majesty's Government to make up their minds upon all the matters under review, I feel absolutely certain that there is no division between us in the sympathy which we feel for a class of workers for whom legislation is needed and in our desire and intention, when time permits, to introduce legislation. I feel sure that I can speak for everybody in that matter. Nowadays there is no division between Parties on questions of that kind. Therefore, while I cannot possibly hold out a hope, and I should not be justified in attempting to fix a date when legislation will be introduced, I can assure those noble Lords who have spoken of our sympathy in the matter. I will use a phrase which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, does not like and which I should not venture to use in his presence: I will say that the matter is under active consideration. It is under active consideration, and in fact my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said recently that he hoped that before long he would be in a position to announce the Government's intentions. I believe the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, used a similar expression. That is what he hoped. I also hope that it will be before long, but your Lordships will, I am sure, appreciate the immense range of the subject matter.

Not only are there the numerous topics mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and those connected with agriculture which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, but also the topics mentioned, with all his vast experience, by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson and by the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest. A great number of topics will have to be separately considered, and they will involve consideration by a number of different Departments. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, whose speech we all found so very interesting and helpful, I said that. I thought he had not been quite fair to the late Government in suggesting that they had been dilatory. It is true that they did nothing overt (as lawyers say) for two and a half years, but they did collect a great quantity of material which has not diminished the labours of their successors.

I should be wasting your Lordships' time if I said more. I am sorry indeed that I must disappoint your hope, but it would not be right for me to express a personal opinion upon any individual point which has been raised. I can only say that I regret I cannot point to the time when legislation will be introduced or, indeed, when discussions will be renewed. There have been many discussions and I do not quite know to which of them the noble Lord referred, but I do not think that any discussions will be renewed. I can assure him of the sympathy of Her Majesty's Government in these problems.

4.35 p.m.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I would thank the House for the kindly attention it has given to the Motion which I moved. I would also thank those noble Lords who have addressed the House. With regard to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, clearly he began by expecting that I should be disappointed. I find it difficult to say much in reply to him, because one could not find very much upon which to cross swords with him when he said it so delightfully, and when he tried all the time to temper disappointment by suggestion that, after all, it was not going to be very long and that something would be done.

The only difficulty in which I am left is the same one in which I found myself when the Bill was turned down in another place in 1923: that I do not know the definition of the word "long." The disappointment, therefore, that will be left with me is in not knowing exactly what that word means. I can only be disarmed by the noble and learned Lord and thank him for the statement he has made. The discussions which I had hoped would be renewed were the discussions which had been proceeding with my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, in which it had been indicated that something approaching finality in their considerations was likely by the end of 1951. I am bound to say that one begins to be a little disturbed at the thought that whenever a Government do anything, by way of gathering Papers, it may well be that they leave to the next Government such a legacy that that Government will not be able to get on with legislation because the Papers, added to the Report, make circumstances completely impossible. Once again, may I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and ask permission of the House to withdraw my Motion?

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

WEST HARTLEPOOL EXTENSION BILL

Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before five o'clock.