Lords Sitting of 2 April 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

POLICE DISCRETION ON PROSECUTION
2.35 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Chief Constable of Southend has recently stated that, even if he has clear evidence of the offence, he will not in future prosecute in certain cases of larceny; whether such an announcement and decision are not contrary to public policy; and what action they are taking.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I understand that the Chief Constable of Southend said that it was not incumbent upon the police to prosecute in all cases of larceny brought to their attention. The police have a discretion to decide whether to prosecute in any particular case, and this discretion is exercised in the light of the circumstances. Her Majesty's Government have no authority to intervene.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I should have no quarrel with his Answer if he had given an adequate summary of what the Chief Constable said? Does my noble friend agree that, while the police have some discretion about prosecuting, they must exercise that discretion in a quasi-judicial way? Can he say whether there is any precedent for a Chief Constable stating in advance that he will not prosecute in an important class of felonies? Did his statement not amount to this, that, just as every dog can have one bite, every thief in Southend can, so far as the police are concerned, commit one felony in a shop?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that I have retained all those supplementary questions firmly in my mind. I do not think that the Chief Constable's statement to the Press need be read as my noble friend has interpreted it. But I must insist that it is entirely a matter for the police to decide whether to prosecute in any particular case, and that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has no responsibility in this matter whatsoever.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while I agree that the police have an obligation to decide in any particular case, may I ask whether the noble Earl does not think That it is incumbent on somebody in the Government or in authority somewhere to take exception to such a statement, which is certainly open to misunderstanding? Many people had understood it in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, had. And I should think it is quite likely that the shoplifters of Southend will also be under this impression.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to make it quite clear that my right honourable friend certainly does not regard shoplifting as a trivial matter. We realise that it is a growing practice, and with the increase in self-service stores it is a matter which naturally causes concern. But I would remind the noble Lord that if the police decide not to prosecute in a case of this sort, then it is of course open to the stores themselves to initiate a prosecution, if they so desire.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, should not the Government show a little more sympathy and understanding with the statement of the Chief Constable of Southend, having regard to the fact that shopping has changed because self-service stores have been established, and all the goods are displayed in the most attractive manner to women who often are hard up. Therefore, surely the onus must lie upon the owner of the shop to protect his goods, and he should not expect the courts to act as a deterrent, paid for by the public.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thought I was trying to steer a rather

443
narrow, but difficult, course between the Scylla of self-service and the Charybdis of Southend in this matter.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, without prejudice one way or the other to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, may I put this point to the Minister? As I understood the Question from the noble Lord opposite, the gravamen of his complaint was that the Chief Constable declared that in a certain class of offence, or petty larceny, he would not prosecute. That is a rather serious decision and statement to make because it invites trouble within the class of potential thieves concerned. The Minister of State says that the Government cannot do anything about it, that it is the business of the Chief Constable of Southend. But may I ask him whether the Home Office do not have inspectors of constabulary who can give advice? Is he aware that any chief constable will take a great deal of advice from the Home Office, which is the last place that any of them wants to offend, and that in the last resort he could say something about the grant to the local police fund? Therefore, is it not doubtful doctrine for the noble Earl to say that this is a discrimination about a particular case, about which I agree the Chief Constable has discretion? But was it not the case that the gravamen of the noble Lord's question was that this was not a particular case, but a class of cases?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that before being drawn too far, possibly on to constitutional rocks, I should like to consider carefully what the noble Lord has just said and, if necessary, reply to a further Question on this point.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, surely the point of this is that it is not the Chief Constable's decision not always to prosecute that is in question. What is in question is the wisdom of publicly announcing that decision, which may lead people to suppose that they can "get away with it" whenever their offence is sufficiently trivial.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is precisely that second matter for which Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friend are not responsible.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not the noble Earl say
444
that his object was to warn the shopkeepers; not to do as the noble Lord suggested here? Was that not the object?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is quite right in thinking that the serious point is that the Chief Constable has restricted his ability, in particular cases, of exercising in future his quasi-judicial function? Is my noble friend aware, or is the Home Secretary aware—and if either of them is not aware, will he perhaps consult my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor?—that the decision of the House of Lords in the recent case of Sykes v. Director of Public Prosecutions makes it clear that, if a person knows that a felony has been committed and does not disclose his knowledge to the authorities, he may himself be prosecuted for the offence of misprision of felony? Can it be right that the police on being informed should do nothing whatever, on the grounds indicated by this Chief Constable?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will take my noble friend's advice and consult my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack about this particular case and its implications, about which I must confess I am somewhat imperfectly informed; but I should not like to leave the impression in your Lordships' minds that in Southend shoplifting can be carried on with impunity. Perhaps my noble friend would permit me to give him some information on this point. It is my understanding that since February, 1962, when this practice, to which my honourable friend objects, was introduced, 197 persons have been reported by store managements in Southend. Of these, 101 were prosecuted by the police; 52 were cautioned by the police; in 3 cases no further action was taken; and in 41 cases store managements were told that the police were taking no action and it was open to them to prosecute. It might be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to learn that in none of these cases did the store management prosecute.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since the noble Earl has raised this particular aspect of action by a store

445
manager, may I ask whether he has considered that if the store prosecutes it has to proceed by summons; if the police come into it the proceedings are conducted by charge and immediate action is taken. Proceeding by summons is long, expensive and extremely hard on the person to be summoned, so that it is not surprising that stores refrain from doing what they had apparently been prevented by the police from achieving.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think we are getting rather far from the original Question.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to put one question to my noble friend. Is it not a fact that in most cities the chief constable comes under the sole authority of the watch committee, and in this case are the Watch Committee satisfied with the remarks of the Chief Constable, in which case the Government would have no say in the matter at all?
EARL JELLICOE: It is my understanding that my noble friend has stated the constitutional position correctly.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could my noble friend say, if it is to be the policy of chief constables to announce they are not going to prosecute in certain cases, whether it is possible to have a list of the cases and the types of offences concerned, and would that document be laid in the Printed Paper Office?
LORD CONESFORD: May I ask my noble friend whether he can throw any light on the nature of the caution given by the police at Southend? Do they say, "Stop stealing" or just, "Don't be caught"? May I also ask my noble friend whether he will, after consulting his colleagues, make a further statement on this matter? And may I ask him whether he is aware that, if he does nut do so, since the enforcement of the criminal law is one of the main functions of Government, I propose by putting a Motion on the Order Paper to bring the matter to debate?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, my noble friend can put a matter on the Order Paper to debate anything he likes, but I think we have got as far with the Chief Constable of Southend as we are likely to get this afternoon.

BRADFORD CORPORATION (CONDITIONING HOUSE) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
SHELL CHEMICALS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OF EGYPT BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

STOCK TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 27), Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Premises to which this Act applies
1.—(1) The premises to which this Act applies are office premises, shop premises and railway premises, being (in each case) premises in the case of which persons are employed to work therein.
(3) In this Act—
(a) "shop premises" means—

(i) a shop;

(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;

(v) any premises (in this Act referred to as "fuel storage premises") occupied for the purpose of a trade or 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
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1), after the first "are" to insert "subject to the next following section". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends who have their names to Amendment No. 1, I beg to move the Amendment, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will take with it Amendment No. 13. We have a long list of Amendments and therefore I propose to be very brief so far as moving this Amendment is concerned, because its purpose is obvious. The Bill as a Bill is valuable for those who are affected by its provisions, but I think we should always remember that there are well over 5 million workers outside the protection of the Bill. The purpose of these two Amendments is to to give the opportunity to the Minister to bring sections of those 5 million within the scope of the Bill.
I would suggest to your Lordships, too, that many of the workers included within those 5 million are in far greater need of protection than some of those who are included within the Bill. They are largely workers in small groups, often scattered, and often without the protection of a trade union. Therefore we submit that they ought to be brought within the scope of the Bill, and that the Minister should be given power to decide, as we give him by Amendment No. 13, which groups he shall bring within it, in the light of experience of the operation of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister may chide us that in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 13 we are asking for an Affirmative Resolution. We always like Affirmative Resolutions. But if the Minister is prepared to make a bargain and to concede the Amendments, then I am quite prepared to agree that it could be done by the Negative Resolution procedure if he would prefer that.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after ("are") insert ("subject to the next following section").—(Lord Lindgren.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): I
think it would probably be true to say that the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the next one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, go to the root of what I might call, not the objection of the
448
Opposition to the Bill—I think that is too strong a word—but to the disappointment of the Opposition. They feel—and I think this has been expressed in what the noble Lord opposite has just said—that the Bill should have covered a wider field, and that the Government, in a sense, have not quite lived up to the recommendations made by the Gowers Committee; although, as I reminded your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill, recommendations of the Gowers Committee have already been carried out in other legislation already passed by Parliament.
If I understand him aright, the noble Lord feels that this Bill is too narrow in its concept, but, as I explained on the Second Reading, this was decided upon deliberately. It may be thought that the Bill should cover a great deal more, but what it covers is enormous and affects the working conditions and life of a very large part of our working population. It is going to be a formidable task both to administer it and to regulate it. Having said that, I do not think that the noble Lord will be greatly surprised when he hears that I very much regret that I cannot accept his Amendment and the new clause which is consequential upon it. We have expressly limited the Bill to safeguard workers in offices, shops and railway premises, for the reasons that I have given.
The noble Lord suggests that it might be possible at a future date to introduce different categories to benefit from the provisions of the Bill. No doubt in the future, when the initial spate of work arising from the provisions of the Bill has subsided, it may be possible to widen the categories of those who benefit, but I do not believe that the right way to do it would be by Affirmative Resolution as is suggested; and I think, as a matter of fact, that the Negative Resolution procedure would be even worse. An Affirmative Resolution, though a very handy procedure which is often used by Governments and often criticised by Oppositions, has one very significant drawback, as noble Lords opposite know—it cannot be amended. There is no possibility whatever of any amendment. To make major extensions in the scope of protective legislation of this kind by Affirmative Resolution would not, I believe, commend itself to Parliament.

449
I am sure that the right way to do what the noble Lord opposite wants to do, would be to introduce fresh legislation adapted to the circumstances of each case, since any extension of the Bill would, I think, naturally need a great deal of detailed examination and discussion. It seems to me proper that that examination should be carried out in Parliament, rather than for a Minister to extend the Bill by Order. I perfectly understand what the noble Lord opposite is trying to do, and I share with him the hope that if this Bill is found to be satisfactory, as I am sire it will be, and its provisions are generally acceptable, other classes and categories will in the future be brought in. I hope in the meantime, however, for the reasons that I have given. that he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am quite sure that, while we on this side of the House recognise the tone of the noble Lord's speech, his remarks will be received with considerable disappointment. Mr. Maudling, on whom many of us will be directing our thoughts this week, when speaking of the Conservative Party's objectives, said that the Conservative Party should direct its attention to eradicating what he called "pools of squalor". This Bill makes some attempt to remove the squalor in some of our offices and shops in this country. But, as my noble friend has said, we are conscious that there are 5 million persons who are excluded from any form of protection. We chided the Government in the Second Reading debate for the twelve years' wait between the Gowers Report and the introduction of this Bill. I would remind the Committee that protective legislation started 161 years ago, but we still make it possible for 5 million people to work without any form of protective legislation. I do not think we can have any real satisfaction if we pass this Bill, still leaving 20 per cent. unprotected.
The noble Lord said that the amount of work involved in this Bill alone will be formidable; and that we fully recognise. But it is a Bill which is flexible. Many of its provisions could well cover many of the occupations which are at present unprotected. I think of the miners. To-day we expect and insist
450
that the miner should be able to have a bath after his day's work. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to consider one type of person who provides an essential service for our wellbeing—the refuse and garbage collectors. I cannot imagine a more distasteful occupation—dirty, certainly. They are men who go out in all types of weather.
There are two clauses in this Bill which could deal with two of the problems that I have mentioned. There is the point that, when a man returns from his duties but before he goes home, his employer, whether he be a local authority or otherwise, should provide facilities for him to be able to wash and change into his normal clothing. He may have been working in rain, and his clothes may be wet. To-day, he has to take those clothes home to dry them. This Bill provides that in the case of an office worker or a shop worker the employer must provide not only facilities for him to wash but also facilities for getting his clothes dry. We want that; but why should we say to the office worker and the shop worker, "You can have it" and yet deny to others these facilities which could well be given without any major legislation?
There are certain clauses of this Bill which could be made to provide some of the basic requirements of the workers whom we should like to see included. As my noble friend has said, it would be open to the Minister, by regulation, to say that a certain category of workers should enjoy the protection of the provisions of certain clauses of the Bill. I recognise that there are some that would not be applicable to certain occupations, but some of these clauses could make a major difference to the standards of the workers. It would not involve, as the noble Lord would lead the Committee to believe, major legislation: it could well be a matter of a few words, saying that certain clauses of the Bill shall apply.
I do not wish to weary the Committee, but let us take the case of the driver of a coal lorry. We have now within this Bill provisions with regard to washing facilities and the like within the coal depot, but it may be that, under the Bill, it will not he necessary to provide adequate facilities for the men who deliver

451
coal. By regulation the Minister could say that these men should have the same facilities as those who operate in a coal depôt. Therefore, I cannot accept the view of the Minister that this Amendment, which is important, is so substantial that it would raise Parliamentary difficulties and precedents. I do not believe it. We should not have put it down if that were the case. We believe that this Bill has its flexibility; that the Minister has his powers of exemption right through the Bill. If, by accepting this Amendment, the Minister could, by regulation, bring in certain categories of workers which he felt should have some form of protection, some legislation to improve their lot in life, then I think this Committee should insist upon it.
LORD CARRINGTON: If the Committee will forgive me, may I say that if I could accept this Amendment, its being the first Amendment, it would, of course, give me great pleasure, because it would put noble Lords opposite in a splendid mood for the rest of this Bill, which would be very agreeable to me and to my noble friends sitting with me. But unfortunately I do not think that this
is possible. This Bill is expressly designed to cater for those who work in offices, shops and railway premises. I was trying, while the noble Lord opposite was making his very persuasive speech, to remember the opening words of the hymn, a line of which is,
"… one step enough for me".
I am sure the first two lines are as apt as the words,
"… one step enough for me ",
and I should very much have liked to quote it; but alas! I cannot remember them. However, I feel that in the case of this Bill one step is enough. Let us see how we get on with this very large Bill before we put any more into it. I should very much like to help the noble Lord in this case, but I do not think we ought to.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I remind the noble Lord that the opening words of the hymn are,
"Lead, kindly light …";
Does that not encourage him?
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kenswood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Taylor, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Greenhill, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monson, L.

Atholl, D.

Freyberg, L.

Newall, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cawley, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rea, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Somers, L.

Courtown, E.

Lothian, M.

Spens, L.

Cowley, E.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Strang, L.

Denham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Swaythling, L.

Devonshire, D.

Margesson, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Merrivale, L.

Twining, L.

Dudley, L.

Mills, V.

Wolverton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.10 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "shop premises" to insert:
"road vehicle depôts, dental mechanics' workrooms, theatres, hospital premises"
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 2. It seeks to bring within the scope of the Bill some of the 5 million non-industrial workers who are left without any protection whatsoever. I was struck by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, defended his opposition to the previous Amendment, with his hymnal quotation, on the ground that we should take one step at a time. What a withering self-condemnation that is! One step at a time, when 5 million workers will be left without any protection whatsoever as regards conditions in which they are employed! It is just over 50 years ago since a few clerks paraded in procession from the Temple Station to Hyde Park, demanding that offices should be brought within the terms and conditions of the Factory Act. And now, after 50 years, we are told to take one step at a time! Twelve years after the Gowers Committee recommendations were published we are told that one step at a time is enough.
The noble Lord seemed to rest his opposition to this provision upon the magnitude of the task which in any case will face those who have to administer this Bill, when it becomes an Act, as regards the 8 million additional persons brought within the scope of protective inspection and control. But the Gowers Committee, of course, had that in mind. They took evidence, and they were satisfied that, save in regard to theatrical premises, on which they made one or two reservations, these premises could and ought to be brought within the scope of legislation; and the Government in 1952 and 1955 took the same view. In 1952, when discussions took place with representative organisations, they were on the footing that these premises would be brought in. That was the case also in 1955 and, as I understand, in 1961. Why has this task suddenly become so formidable? Why has it suddenly become a task which ought not to be tackled, 50 years after the problem became one of public agitation? We take the view that, desirable as a number of the provisions of this Bill may be, it is condemned as being completely inadequate and insufficient by the fact that 5 trillion non-industrial
454
workers will still be without any protective provisions and without any protection as to the conditions of their employment. In these circumstances we invite the Committee to bring within the provisions of the Bill the premises cited in my Amendment. They will then be doing no more than the Gowers Committee recommended, and the Government intended to do in 1952, 1955 and, as I understand it, in 1961. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after the second ("premises") insert ("road vehicle depots, dental mechanics'
workrooms, theatres, hospital premises ").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? I understand he seeks to bring 5 million more people within the scope of this Bill. Can he say how they are split up among the road vehicle depots, dental mechanics' workrooms, theatres and hospital premises?
LORD LATHAM: I have no information as to how they are split up, and I doubt whether anyone else has.
3.20 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: Here again we come to the fundamental objection or disappointment in the Bill, to which I referred in my previous answer. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, is seeking to widen the scope of the Bill by introducing a number of other categories of premises to which the provisions of the Bill would apply. For much the same reasons as I gave in my answer to the noble Lord who moved the previous Amendment, I feel that this would be a mistake. The coverage of this Bill is already enormous.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, took me to task for quoting the words "one step enough for me". This is a very large step. If you take two very large steps at once, you sometimes fall flat on your face; and that is not entirely a good thing to do in matters of legislation of this kind.
LORD LATHAM: Are we to understand that the noble Lord is afraid that the Government may fall on its face?
LORD CARRINGTON: I am frightened that this legislation will fall on its face; and I think that, in spite of his rather ungracious speech, is the last

455
thing which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would want. He is all in favour of this Bill. What he wants is that more classes of people should be introduced to benefit from its provisions.
LORD LATHAM: I am in favour of an adequate Bill.
LORD CARRINGTON: But not against the provisions of this Bill. All the noble Lord wants is that more people should be included in it. I am explaining to him why, on the whole, I believe that this would be a mistake. One reason is that it is estimated that about four times as many premises as there are factories under the Factories Act will come under the provisions of this Bill. It is plain that the additions of the kind suggested by the noble Lord would greatly add not only to the complexity of the Bill but also to its administration; and it would distract the various enforcing authorities from concentrating their resources on the people which the Bill is designed to cover. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would welcome that. Nor do I believe—nor, I hope, will your Lordships—that that would be a desirable outcome.
I am quite sure that it will be necessary to put in a great deal of hard work to ensure that the provisions of this Bill are put into effect properly. Those of us who have read the Bill realise that it is far from straightforward and that there are many regulations to be made under the various clauses which will further add to the time which it will take to put it into effect. We are anxious to see that this Bill not only becomes law but becomes operative as soon as possible and that is the general reason why my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour feels that it would be undesirable to extend the scope of the Bill further. But, in addition to this, in regard to the particular classes of premises to which the Amendment refers, there are special considerations which to a greater or lesser extent make their inclusion inadvisable.
First, the Amendment seeks to cover road vehicle dôpots. This point has been very carefully examined in the Ministry of Labour and the definition raises a considerable difficulty. There are, I believe, well over one million workers engaged for at least part of their time in some kind of road transport. It would
456
be extremely difficult to establish which of them were employed for a fair proportion of their time in road vehicle depôts, and this is particularly so because of the number of small businesses concerned. A good many are likely to be family businesses, and they are excluded by definition. But, even so, some kind of initial inspection would still be necessary. Another difficulty would be that of deciding upon suitable standards. Lorry drivers, for example, must in the nature of things be constantly employed in different places, and I would not think it reasonable to require the provision of facilities on a very lavish scale at places where workers are unlikely to spend much of their time. It would be right, I think, to point out that a large number of workers in garages and large road vehicle depôts—for example, those engaged on major repairs—are already covered by the Factories Act. The Government have decided, therefore, taking these considerations into account, that the balance of argument is against extending the scope of this Bill to road vehicle depôts.
With regard to dental mechanics' workrooms, those which would satisfy the definition of factories under the Factories Act are naturally already covered by the legislation, and so it is unnecessary for us to consider them in this Bill. I believe that the remainder would be very small premises, with only a few, perhaps one or two, employees next to a dentist's surgery. A dentist is normally self-employed and so not covered by the Bill, and I believe that there would be serious difficulties in practice in bringing inspectors into these premises. However, I must say this to be absolutely fair: I think that the T.U.C. are in favour of including these workmen in the Bill, although the British Dental Association have expressed strong objection. In our consultations with the Ministry of Health they have told us that a special code of provisions would be necessary to put any legislation into effect. On the whole, and for the reasons given in the first part of my answer, I think these premises are better left out.
Thirdly, the Amendment suggests the inclusion of theatres. I quite agree that the conditions in a number of theatres are not what they should be, and there are certainly problems for the backstage staff; but I wonder whether your Lordships should not be rather careful

457
before these premises are brought within the Bill. They seem to me to deserve special consideration, and the Gowers Committee accepted this. It might well be that legislation of the kind which is proposed in this Bill would put out of business quite a number of existing theatres, particularly those old buildings where the facilities are admittedly inadequate. But it is impossible to find new theatres in the way that new offices can be found, and I believe that the effect might be that these old theatres would have to close down altogether. I do not believe that this would be in the interests of the acting profession; nor do I think it would be in the interests of the public. It has been suggested that the old theatres could be dealt with under the exemption powers in Clause 46, which deal with difficult individual cases. But the exemptions in this clause are meant only to provide a temporary period of grace during which the occupier looks for more suitable premises, and in the case of these theatres, obviously, it would be difficult to find alternative premises. And, further, if exemptions were freely given the standards of accommodation would not be improved just exactly in those places where the need for improvement is greatest.
There is an additional difficulty about theatres. The numbers employed fluctuate very considerably over comparatively short periods. The casts of plays, for example, vary from one or two to perhaps 30 or 40, or even more; and I should imagine that in the pantomime season the crush is greatest, so that the provision of washing facilities and so on, which is adequate for most of the year, may at certain times of the year be quite inadequate. Indeed, I do not quite know why the noble Lord has drawn the line at theatres. I do not understand why we should stop there. If we are going to have theatres, why not concert halls and cinemas and other forms of entertainment? I would have thought, on the whole, that the best way of dealing with this problem—and I admit that there is a problem—is by voluntary negotiations between the representatives of the parties concerned, the theatre managements and the acting profession. Agreement here can be much more flexible and can take account of special circumstances and special cases.
458
Finally, the noble Lord wanted the Bill to apply to hospitals. All of us would agree that conditions in hospitals are of the highest importance; but I do not think that this is a subject to be covered in this Bill. Incidentally, offices in hospitals are covered because we are trying to deal comprehensively with all offices, but we should distort the Bill and its main purpose if other parts of hospitals were added to it. The Bill was not designed with these premises in mind, and I am convinced that it would be impracticable to apply it to them. I realise full well that I have not given the noble Lord, Lord Latham, much satisfaction, but I think that he will appreciate that most of the suggestions he has made have already been given careful consideration in another place, where they were first made, and I can assure him that very careful thought has been given since then to the proposals he has made in his Amendment and also to the whole problem of extending the scope of this Bill. But the Government are still of the opinion that it would be unwise to extend the scope of the Bill, and in the particular cases which the noble Lord suggested it would be either impracticable or particularly difficult. I hope, therefore, that he will accept what I have said and be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
3.31 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: It is difficult to know what to do to please the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is in charge of the Bill. We gave him an opportunity on a previous Amendment for the Minister himself to select the groups of workers considered necessary to be brought within the framework of the Bill by regulation. That was rejected out of hand; it was too wide in scope for the Government to accept. Here, under this Amendment, we have selected specific groups of workers to be added to come under the Bill, and again, because they are specified, the Minister objects.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the administrative task facing local authorities when this Bill has to be operated will be tremendous; but they can cope with it. I said on Second Reading, and it is worth repeating, that, in so far as the vast majority of good employers are concerned, the conditions under which their workpeople work are far and away ahead of the provisions in

459
this Bill. Therefore, in their administration of the Bill local authorities will not have to worry about those who are ahead of legislation, the best employers. But the great value of including a group of people such as is suggested in the Amendment is that, although it is going to take a long time for local authorities to get through the whole range of premises within the ambit of their authority, at any place where conditions are unusually bad, their inclusion within the Bill will enable a group of workers to call the attention of the local authority to their specific case.
One of the problems that local authorities will have when this Bill starts to operate is that, rather than having a routine section of inspections coming area by area or group by group, for a considerable period a number of inspectors will have to take inspections out of turn, out of area, because of requests from groups of workers because their conditions are particularly bad. It would have been valuable to include within the Bill these groups of workers to enable them to have that added power of calling upon the local authority, and the local authority's inspector, for the inspection and the remedying of their complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, called attention to what, after all, amounts to silliness coming from the Bill. He quite rightly mentioned that where there is a road haulage contractor who has a workshop maintaining his vehicles, that workshop comes within the scope of the Factories Act; but the yard in which the lorry drivers operate does not. These lorry drivers may be dealing with dirty materials; or a fellow may have been on the road for six or eight hours handling goods while loading and unloading, and when he comes back to the depôt he is not in the brightest of spirits and is certainly not in the cleanest of conditions. While the worker in the workshop, the other side of the fence, within the precincts of the factory, is covered with regard to washing facilities, the man who has to drive the lorry that has been repaired by the fellow in the workshop cannot have a wash before he goes home or before taking the vehicle out after it has been loaded.
I agree that, so far as the vast majority of the large road haulage contractors are concerned, the facilities for
460
their drivers are as adequate as those for employees in the workshop. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, again called attention to the necessity for including these. As a result of the 1953 Act brought in by the predecessors of the present Government, we have a large number of small operators with ten, eight or five lorries; and it is the small operator, not the large operator, that we are concerned about. It is not the best of dentists we are worried about; but some of those working a bit near the bone—perhaps they do not work near the bone.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: A bit near the teeth.
LORD LINDGREN: My cockney language gets me into trouble in your Lordships' House, and my phrases are not always of the best. But perhaps those working on a shoestring is a better way of putting it—not pulling the teeth out, of course. Where a small operator is working, say, in a room with his dental mechanics there should be an opportunity for the workpeople to call the attention of the local authority to the conditions. I regret that, after having rejected one Amendment which gives the Minister the power, the noble Lord still objects to specifying groups of workers as enumerated in the Amendment.
LORD AUCKLAND: Having heard my noble friend's last speech, I am much happier than I was before; but I must confess that I am a little worried that theatres are to be completely outside the scope of the Bill. Many young people work in theatres, and having been backstage in a good many theatres I have seen some of the conditions particularly applicable to Clause 9 of the Bill. I feel that the Government should give further consideration to bringing them within the ambit of the clause dealing with sanitation and washing conditions, and especially the provision of hot water, which in many cases, particularly in the pantomime season, is very difficult to obtain. I realise that this is a comprehensive Bill, and, as such, I support it; but there is substance for bringing theatres, and especially the newer theatres, within the ambit of the Bill. It is quite obvious that some of the older theatres would be put out of business, but certainly future theatres, and some of the new ones, could, as I see it,

461
quite easily adapt themselves to comply with some of the more important provisions of the Bill, and particularly those in Clause 9.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would comment on another aspect of this matter. Does he not think there is some disadvantage in legislation that deals differently with two competing parts of the same industry? Certain obligations are here being put on to the railways which will cost them a good deal of money; yet the same obligations are not being put on road transport. The reasons for this may be very good, and I do not want to argue against them. But if the Government feel that there are such good reasons, is it not right that they should know that it is in fact tipping the balance a little in favour of one part of the industry as against the other?
3.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Minister to-day reminds me of a cartoon that appeared in one of the evening papers the other day which portrayed the Government in the guise of "Steptoe and Son". It is quite obvious that the Minister has now coined the motto for the image, "step by step". We shall not make a great deal of progress at that pace. The Minister objected to our first Amendment because of its width. I recognise that there is a wide scope being brought into the Bill. But here we are dealing with four limited sections of employees. The Minister has said that if we were to accept this new group it would aggravate the task of implementing the provisions of this Bill for offices and shops.
Let us take the case of a hospital. By this legislation you are to provide proper provisions for the clerical administrative staff. You are going to exclude from it the men who drive the ambulances, the men who carry or push the stretcher from the entrance to the ward, and the boiler caretaker. I cannot see that it would create any added task if the local authority had to enforce these extra provisions. The inspector has to go to the hospital from time to time to see that the administrative people are being properly cared for. It would not be much to expect that he should also see that the other categories were being provided for. I would echo the words of Lord
462
Robertson of Oakridge: it is significant that the Government have been prepared to bring railway premises into this Bill. It will mean a heavy charge on the railway authorities. We recognise that, but we wish to see it done because we believe that the workers should have the proper provisions. But here is a case where the duty is placed on one section of transport workers and where, because the others are road workers, they are to be excluded.
The noble Lord made the case that an extra 1 million men would be involved. I do not think that is the figure. I think it is a good deal less, but I will not argue the point on that. It is a fact—and the Minister has himself admitted—that road transport garages are covered by the Factories Act. I cannot see why those depôts into which these vehicles go should not provide suitable facilities for their transport drivers. The bus driver is an instance. The noble Lord said: "That would mean another inspector to do it". I do not believe that that is so. The factory inspector has to visit the workshops and the depôt, in order to inspect the facilities for the mechanics and the men working in the depôt. It would be relatively easy to say that the inspector should be given the duty of looking into the provisions for the transport driver. I believe that the Government have decided that this is as far as they are prepared to step to-day. I do not believe that any amount of persuasion this afternoon will persuade them otherwise. I hope that my noble friend will put the responsibility clearly upon the Government that it is they who reject any form of justice to these people, and that while some of their colleagues in the same business have protection they have not. I hope that my noble friend will press this Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord opposite ended his remarks by saying that he felt the Government had come to the conclusion that this was as far as they are prepared to go. That is exactly what, politely and in delicate language, I was trying to tell him earlier. That is exactly the position. I think the Government feel that the scope of this Bill is wide enough already. I have a certain sympathy with Lord Robertson of Oakridge in what he said about railway premises being made subject to this Bill and not all the road premises. The reason is that it is much easier to do so

463
with railway premises. You have one employer and people working much more closely together, but it is much more difficult with road premises. This is precisely one of the reasons why we do not want to extend the Bill further, because the more workers you deal with, the more anomalies you get.
This is a Bill which covers a vast number of people in offices, shops and railway premises. It is an enormous step forward in our social legislation. To listen to noble Lords opposite, one might almost imagine that one was doing somebody out of something, rather than introducing a new piece of social legislation of a radical character. The Government have very carefully weighed up in their minds how far they ought to go in this Bill; and I think I ought to warn your Lordships that, with all the expert advice we have at our command, we believe that this Bill is about as wide in scope as it is possible to administer in one go. If we attempt anything very much wider, then we shall delay the legislation, and it will not be nearly so effective as it would be if the Bill were left with the scope which it has at the present time. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords opposite will realise the Government have a good case, and that they will not press their Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: Without appearing ungracious, I must say that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, advanced any single convincing argument in favour of the Government's opposition to this Amendment. It was a list and a parade of alleged difficulties which would have to be faced if the scope of the Bill were extended in the terms of the Amendment. That is the old argument which has always been the argument against reform: that it was impossible; that it was difficult; and that it was too wide—every negative disqualification that the language provided prayed in aid in opposition to reforms, and especially reforms concerning factories and premises of employment. The noble Lord and his colleagues in the Government are clearly afraid of the size of this problem. Why should they be afraid unless they are on their face, as suggested in the earlier Amendment?
Then the noble Lord said that one would think that somebody was being done out of something. Well, 5 million
464
people will be done out of something: they will be done out of the protective provisions of this Bill, and that, surely, is an important consideration. The noble Lord referred in detail to the various premises. It is the case, of course, that the Gowers Committee recommended that dental workshops should be brought within the coverage of legislation, and one would have thought there was no answer to that. The only class of workroom used by dentists not covered either by the Factories Act or the Bill are dental workshops attached to premises of dental surgeons and ancillary to their business. One would have thought that, from the point of view of health, the provisions of this Bill should apply to technicians' workrooms, and especially, I am informed, they should be applied to workshops where prosthetic appliances are made and where satisfactory conditions of cleanliness should be imperative.
The noble Lord also mentioned, rather cursorily I thought, the question of theatres, and dismissed that question from his mind rather cavalierly. The Gowers Committee did not, I quite admit, suggest or recommend that the provisions of legislation otherwise recommended should be applied to old theatres without reservation. They did suggest, however, that there were a number of specific restrictions, devices and means which could be applied even to old theatres. As regards the proposal that the application of protective provisions of this kind to theatres should be the subject of negotiation, Equity, of course, pointed out that the situation is such that the problem cannot be solved by negotiation of a voluntary character. It can be solved only by the inclusion of protective provisions in legislation.
With regard to welfare workers and hospitals, surely it is a Gilbertian situation that persons who themselves are concerned with maintaining and improving the health of one or other section of the community should be denied the protection which will provide and maintain them in good health and good conditions. In those circumstances, I think the Government must accept the responsibility for having gone back on their word and on their intention in 1952, 1956 and, as I understand it, in 1961 Therefore, I feel bound to press the Amendment standing in my name.
On Question, whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.0 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (3, a) to add to sub-paragraph (ii):
"(including mail order business)".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ascertain from the Government whether mail order houses come within the compass of the Bill. I should explain to those who may not be acquainted with the mechanism of mail order houses that they are organisations which purchase goods in bulk and sell them through salesmen, or through housewives themselves, by catalogue, to persons in their homes, or they may sell this merchandise by advertisements appearing in magazines or newspapers. Therefore I submit that a mail order house is not a wholesale business, even though Lord Carrington's Amendment widens the description and compass of a wholesaler.
I submit that in normal trading terminology a mail order house would not be regarded as a retail shop. An assurance was given in the other place that mail order houses came within the definition of "retail trade or business", but it was
Their Lordships divided: Contents 27; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor, L.

Greenhill, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Kenswood, L.

Peddie, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Effingham, E.

Margesson, V.

Atholl, D.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Brocket, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Cawley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Monck, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newall, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L.

Newton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hereford, V.

Rathcaven, L.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Courtown, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Cowley, E.

Inchcape, E.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jessel, L.

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Swaythling, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Long, V.

Twining, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lothian, M.

Willingdon, M.

Eccles, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wolverton, L.

not made clear that they came within the use of the word "business". As I read the Bill, "retail trade or business" appear to go together. In the next paragraph the words "wholesale dealer or merchant" are used. Therefore it would appear to me the words "retail" and "wholesale" are the guiding words. A mail order house does not come within the normal terminology of "retail", and it is clearly not in the wholesale side of business, since the merchandise is distributed in small quantities. Therefore they are outside the description of "wholesale". I think the Government intend that mail order houses should be within the compass of the Bill, and I should like the Minister to tell the Committee what words cover this description of a mail order house. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("business") insert "(including mail order business)".—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): I hope I can give the noble Lord the assurance he asks for. We are, after all, dealing

467
primarily with a drafting matter now; there is no difference between us as to the desirability of making certain that mail order houses are covered by the Bill. We have examined this point very carefully, and I can give the firm assurance that the wording of subsection (3) (a) (ii) does include mail order businesses. Perhaps I may say a word about some of the doubts that have arisen about this matter. The first is this: does the fact that the retail trade or business is carried on through the post in any way alter its character, so that it is no longer retail trade or business? The answer is, No, it does not. The public may buy goods retail either by collecting them personally or by sending an order and remittance through the post or by using the telephone; but whatever method of communication they may use with the place supplying the goods, the business there carried on is that of retail trade or business.
Again, does the fact that these mail order businesses make use of local agents to collect customers who may then communicate with them directly or through the agent in any way alter the nature of the business? Again the answer is, No. The retail trade or business does not alter its character merely because agents are used to further the business. Then, is there any doubt that the whole of the business would be covered by the definition which refers to a building or part of a building? The noble Lord did not raise this point, but it has been raised. Is it possible that the packing department, which in this kind of trade is a very large part of the business, might be regarded as a part of the building not covered? We have looked at this possibility. I am assured that the whole of the activities constitute the retail trade or business, and they certainly include packing and despatch of the goods.
The noble Lord opposite may ask whether I object—and in fact I do object—to adding the words which he wants to add. I object for these reasons. It would not be possible to use the words the noble Lord wants, because although on the face of it they are perfectly easily understood, I am advised they do not have the precise meaning which would be necessary in a Statute. Conceivably one could add to the Bill
468
some words to the effect that retail trade or business does not cease to be such because it is carried on by agents or makes use of the postal service. It would be unnecessary to do that, and on the very well-known principle that you do not want to have unnecessary words in a Bill, especially if there is a possibility that they may throw doubt on the same words in other Statutes, which would be the result in this case, I suggest it would be better to leave this subsection as it is.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I think he goes a good deal further than the explanation given in another place. As he will appreciate, there were considerable doubts everywhere as to the interpretation. We now have the Minister's assurance. Would he consider between now and the next stage whether the position might not be made a little clearer if we could insert after the word "or" the word "similar"; in other words, cover a pure shop selling merchandise over the counter "or similar business"? This might then embrace the type of mail order business to which I have been referring. If the noble Lord would consider that, I shall be willing to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: As I understand it, the question of the interpretation of the words will fall to be done by a magistrates' court, and the language ought to be as explicit and clear as possible, because the magistrates' court is composed, for the most part, of lay persons.
LORD NEWTON: I hesitate to make a pronouncement on a legal question like that, but I should have thought that on a question of law, on a question of interpretation of the Statute, there is certainly some form of appeal to a higher court.
LORD LATHAM: There would be a right of appeal to quarter sessions.
LORD NEWTON: I do not want to go any further than this. Any Statute is interpreted by the courts; we all know that. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me to consider another slight Amendment. I will certainly do that, but I should not like to commit myself, again for this reason: that I shall have to inquire whether or not even the addition he now proposes might throw

469
doubt on the same words in another Statute.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (3)(a)(iii), to leave out "to persons resorting thereto". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 on the Marshalled List. It might be convenient to the Committee if I discussed at the same time the related Amendments Nos. 5 and 94. My right honourable friend has decided that the definition of "wholesale shop premises" in Clause 1 (3)(a)(iii) needs to be widened in order to include wholesale premises which do business with customers who do not resort to them. The present definition in the Bill corresponds closely to the relevant section of the Shops Act. It would exclude wholesale premises to which customers do not resort. For example, as the Bill stands at the moment this would include the wholesale counterpart of a mail order business. However, the welfare provisions in Section 38 of the Shops Act apply, among other premises, to any warehouse occupied for the purpose of his trade by any wholesale dealer or merchant. This is obviously a wider definition, and since the Bill is designed to repeal Section 38 of the Shops Act when the Bill comes into force, my right honourable friend has concluded that the Amendment I am moving is necessary to avoid a situation in which the benefits of protective legislation are removed from some classes of workers.
The other two Amendments, Nos. 5 and 94, are necessary because the Factories Act already applies to certain classes of warehouses. These are warehouses in factories, warehouses belonging to the owners, trustees or conservators of a dock, wharf or quay, and any other warehouse in or for the purpose of which mechanical power is used. Nothing further needs to be done in the Bill about warehouses in factories, because they are removed from its scope by Clause 83. The object of Amendment No. 5 is to leave warehouses belonging to the owners, et cetera, of docks, wharves or quays within the Factories Act since that Act deals generally with safety, health and welfare in docks. On the other hand, Amendment No. 94 transfers to this Bill any wholesale warehouses which use mechanical power, so that all wholesale warehouses, other than those in
470
factories or belonging to owners of docks, may be dealt with under the Bill. In other words, in a rather complicated way we are trying to make sure that all warehouses are included somewhere. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("to persons resorting thereto").—(Lord Newton.)
LORD SHEPHERD: We on this side obviously welcome anything done by the Government to extend and widen the provisions of this Bill, and to bring more workers within its scope. The noble Lord used the word "warehouse." I am quite sure that he will be aware that there are some warehouses which do not come within the orbit of "wholesale". I am thinking in particular now of the forwarding and packing agencies, those firms which have fairly large warehouses wherein is received merchandise from a manufacturer for packing and onward transmission, it may be to retailers in this country, but in many cases for the export trade. May I ask the Minister whether that type of warehouse will be within the compass of this Bill? It is a warehouse which is not strictly wholesale, but which receives merchandise from a supplier on the instructions of the seller or the buyer, for packing and onward freighting to its eventual destination.
LORD NEWTON: I am not quite clear what the noble Lord means about being a warehouse which is not wholly wholesale. If it really is wholesale then it will be covered by the Bill or by the Factories Act. I will, however, look into the position. If there is a rather peculiar type of warehouse which is somehow defined differently and may not be covered, certainly I will look into it.
LORD LATHAM: Surely my noble friend refers to buildings which are used for goods in transit from one place to another?
LORD SHEPHERD: But not on the railway or in docks.
LORD NEWTON: Again, I do not want to be too categorical about this, but I would have thought that they would be dealt with under the definition of a "wholesaler".
LORD SHEPHERD: No, because a wholesaler is a part of a selling operation. These are warehouses in the servicing trade—quite different from the selling operation. They are part of the service. I would hope that the Minister will see that this type of warehouse is included in the Bill.
LORD NEWTON: I will certainly look into this point between now and the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, at end insert ("but not including a warehouse belonging to the owners, trustees or conservators of a dock, wharf or quay").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (3) (a) (v), after "solid" to insert "or liquid". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. The Committee will see that at line 26, the Government have, with our full support, brought coal depots within the provisions of the Bill, and words have been used to include the sale of solid fuel. The purpose of my Amendment is to bring within the compass of the Bill those organisations or premises which deal with liquid fuels. The only difference in power these days is whether the fuel is solid or liquid, and I hope the Government will see that both these commodities are treated alike. The Minister may say that petrol or diesel oil sold from a pump to the owner of a motorcar or a lorry constitutes a retail trade. I think he probably is within the definition. So far as liquid fuel is concerned one can well say that the installations where oil is refined into petrol or paraffin is a source of supply—it is the manufacturer.
I come now, therefore, to the question whether those installations which store that liquid fuel and from which the retailer is supplied can be brought within the description of a wholesale dealer. The point again is the one that I was trying to make to the noble Lord, Lord Newton: that a wholesale business is not a service, it is a selling operation. It may be argued that an oil dump from which the retailer obtains his supply, while it is in
472
the middle part of the trade, the channel of trade, does not constitute a "wholesaler" because the fuel is sold by some other organisation, and therefore this installation is merely part of a service within the fuel industry. I hope that the Government will take the view that if coal is being treated as a normal commodity, and that the coal depôt is wholesale or retail, as of course it is according to how the depôt operates, then liquid fuels shall be treated accordingly: in other words, that we shall treat all fuels, and the distribution of the same, in a like manner.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that, as I understand the position, the installations that carry out the refining are all covered by the Factories Act? Therefore we are not really widening the scope of the Bill, as was his objection earlier this afternoon, but we are making it clear—as I think is the Government's intention; I hope it is—that liquid fuels at the petrol pump shall be regarded as retail trade and therefore within the compass of the Bill. I hope that this part of the distribution of liquid fuels, comprising storage and places from which vehicles collect in order to deliver to the retailer, will be classed as "wholesale" and will be brought in after the words "solid fuel". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, after ("solid") insert ("or liquid").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I think I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord on this matter. Perhaps I can go a little more deeply into it, because his Amendment would include things other than wholesale depôts. Garages, for instance, would comprise the greatest number of such premises with liquid fuel. The vast majority of garages have offices and shops which sell spares and accessories on the premises, so they are clearly within the scope of the Bill. So, too, are the showrooms or buildings where cars are garaged, washed or greased. They come under Clause 1 (3) (a) (ii). If there is a workshop in a garage, that is covered by the Factories Act.
That leaves for consideration the forecourt where petrol pumps are to be found. Many of these forecourts are now covered by "structures". Clause 88 (1) of the Bill provides that, except on railways,

473
"building" includes structure, so that those forecourts, too, would be within the scope of the Bill. Whether the forecourt is within the scope or not does not, however, make any practical difference in regard to pump attendants, because some part of the garage will be within the scope of this Bill or possibly that of the Factories Act, and facilities will have to be provided for the staff. The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, provides for the safe storage generally of fuel in garages. Storage facilities for the sale of paraffin and similar fuels which form part of, or are attached to, retail shops are clearly for the purpose of the trade or business of the shop, and I do not think there is any doubt that they are within the scope of the Bill.
That leaves what the noble Lord opposite is worried about: the wholesale storage depôts. It will, of course, depend on the form which those depôts take, but if they are a building or a structure they will fit the definition in Clause 1 (3) (a) (iii) which we have just amended; that is to say, a building, or part of a building, occupied by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale. I hope that I have said enough to show the noble Lord that most premises engaged in the distribution of liquid fuel will be covered by the Bill. That is certainly the intention, and I hone he will be satisfied with that assurance.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Lord for his reply which seems to me extremely satisfactory. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (3) (a) (v), to leave out all words after "including" and to insert instead: "dock storage premises or colliery storage premises". The noble Lord said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together. Further study of the phrase "fuel storage premises" in Clause 1 has shown that it would bring within its scope places which the Bill was not intended to cover. This arises out of the fact that the National Coal Board and other owners of coal mines or opencast quarries are engaged in the sale of solid fuel, and some parts of the area immediately adjacent to the pithead or
474
quarry are used "for the storage of such fuel intended to be sold". The definition as it stands would therefore apply the Bill to most, if not all, the places where colliery surface workers work.
Apart from coal depôts on the railways and any other places away from mines and quarries, the intention behind the Bill was to include "land-sale" depôts in mining areas. Those are depôts in which coal merchants' employees or employees of outside contractors are regularly engaged. The Amendment therefore excludes fuel storage premises at mines or quarries other than those places where outside persons are regularly employed to work. I would emphasise that this Amendment does not mean that the employees of the National Coal Board or the mine or quarry owners will not enjoy the benefits conferred by the Bill. As your Lordships know, the welfare amenities for colliery workers are now of a very high standard, and these workers have, in addition, the protection of the Mines & Quarries Act, 1954. So this Amendment, in effect, avoids an unnecessary duplication. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("including") to end of line 32 and insert the said new words—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("and").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(d) 'dock storage premises' means fuel storage 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
(e) 'colliery storage premises' means fuel storage premises which form part of premises which, for the purposes of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, form part of a mine or quarry, other than premises where persons are regularly employed to work by a person other than the owner (as defined by that Act) of the mine or quarry.").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: Before speaking to Amendment No. 10, I should like to declare a personal interest in the subject of this Bill generally. I own a small business which consists of a small workshop, and two retail shops in the picture-framing trade. I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we took the next three Amendments, Nos. 10, 11 and 12 together. Their purpose is to exclude from the definition of "railway premises" under the Bill railway electrical supply stations to which Section 123 of the Factories Act applies. Office premises in these electrical stations will, however, still come under the Bill by virtue of Clause 72(1). The Amendments are necessary because Clause 83(1), which excludes factory premises, does not extend to the electrical stations to which Section 125 of the Factories Act applies.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, after ("include") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, after first ("premises") insert ("(b)").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, at end insert ("or
(c) premises wherein are carried on such processes or operations as are mentioned in section 123 (1) (electrical stations) of the Factories Act 1961 and for such supply as is therein mentioned ").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have one small point to raise on this clause. I must apologise for not having given prior notice of it, but I have only just noticed it. It concerns subsection (3) which deals with the definition of "shop premises". The point to which I would draw my noble friend's attention is that "shop premises" is defined as meaning first "a shop", and secondly a building used principally or solely for the carrying on of a retail trade or business; and thereafter there are some other extensions of the word "shop".
476
Later on "retail trade or business" is also defined as including certain occupations which may be carried on. Other definitions of the word "shop" and "retail trade or business" appear in the Shops Act, 1950, in Section 74. There is always a certain amount of dispute, when it comes to individual premises, whether or not they are "a shop" within the meaning of this or that Act.
The definition of "retail trade or business" in the Shops Act, which is used as part of the definition of a shop itself, includes the business of a barber or a hairdresser. The definition of "retail trade or business" in this Bill does not. I am quite certain that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to include barbers and hairdressers within the scope of this Bill. But I wonder whether, because almost exactly the same words are used in the definition in the Shops Act of "retail trade or business", except for the fact that it also includes a barber and hairdresser, there may be some difficulty in knowing whether in this Bill this particular trade is comprehended within the term "shop". I wonder whether, before the next stage of the Bill, one of my noble friends will be so good as to see whether there in anything in this point, because I am sure that it would be a good thing to clear up any doubts if they arise.
LORD CARRINGTON: My noble kinsman is quite right. It certainly is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that barbers' shops should be included in this Bill. I am advised that the expression "a shop" in Clause 1 (3) (a) (i) includes a barber's shop. But since doubt has been expressed about it, I think I had better look at it again. I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter, and I will see that it is all right before the next stage.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Exception for premises in which only employer's relatives or outworkers work
2.—(1) This Act shall not apply to any premises to which it would, apart from this subsection, apply, if none of the persons employed to work in the premises is other than the husband, wife, parent, grandparent. son, daughter, grandchild, brother or sister of the person by whom they are so employed.
4.32 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" to insert "except section 17 thereof,". The noble Lord said: It falls to my lot to move Amendments Nos. 14 to 20—seven Amendments in all—but I do not propose to give them all equal weight, neither, I think, would the Committee nor the Government. For that reason I do not feel that I can discuss them all together—I hope that does not disappoint the noble Lords opposite too much—but I think I can, at the outset of what seems to me to be something of a marathon task, speak of the general considerations that are applicable to all these Amendments. I hope by doing that I shall avoid what the Committee might feel would be tedious repetition if I made the same points on each and every one of them.
The general considerations which are applicable to all are these. The first is that many of the premises to be covered by the Bill are those of very small businesses, small shops in competition one with one another. To exclude one from what may seem to many small businessmen as the very onerous provisions of this Bill, on the ground that only the family is employed in it, and to force others to carry out the provisions of this Bill, would clearly give to the family business a competitive advantage, an unfair advantage. I can understand the Government's wish to protect the small man, but in protecting one small man by this clause you would, in fact, be injuring another small man. You would be placing one in a very advantageous position. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, speaking just now on another Amendment, pointed to the fact that something we were doing would appear to place the railway in a disadvantageous position vis-á-vis road transport. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, recognised that this competitive principle had some validity. I hope he will feel that it also has validity in relation to the people that we are discussing, who will be affected by this clause.
The second consideration I would mention is the fact that family exemptions from the provisions of Acts of this sort clearly represent an entirely new departure from our health, safety and welfare legislation. No such exemptions appear in
478
any of the Factories Acts; they do not appear in the Shops Act, nor certainly in the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956. In the case of the latter measure, if ever there is an industry in which there are small family concerns, surely agriculture is an outstanding example. There is no family exemption from the provisions of that Act of 1956. I rather think that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may have been in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when that Act went through and will have some recollection of this fact, even if he has not looked it up subsequently.
The third consideration I would mention, is that the family employee in most cases lacks the protection of the trade union, because it is not the type of employment which clearly leads to membership of a trade union. I understand that this clause would in no way debar one member of the family from exercising his or her right to bring a civil action, in case of personal injuries received arising out of his or her work. But in most cases such a man would not have behind him the wealth and the experience of a great trade union, which I know is immensely important to the employee vis-à-vis his employer.
The fourth consideration I would mention, is that the excellent Gowers Committee certainly made no recommendation upon this matter—at least, if they did I have not been able to find it—of the exclusion of the family business; for, I should think, the very obvious reason that we ought not to brush aside essential safeguards just because it is a small concern, nor because those employed in it are related one to the other.
To that I would add that, even if this Bill becomes an Act, some 5 million people will be excluded from the type of protection that it envisages, as we have heard several times this afternoon. These 5 million are very much too many, and we ought not to add to that by the exclusion of the people set out in this clause. If the conditions which this Bill seeks to remove are bad, they should be removed from all establishments regardless of family considerations. In so many cases one member of the family will stand, in relation to the head of the business, as an ordinary wage or salary earner, and he ought to be as much safeguarded

479
by the provisions of this Bill as any other employee working in a similar establishment.
Having got my general considerations off my chest, I come down now to the particular. But I hope that the noble Lords who will reply to my Amendments as I come to them will remember these general considerations, because I do not propose to repeat them. Amendment No. 14 is the first Amendment standing in my name. Clause 17 deals admirably with the fencing of exposed parts of machinery. This part of the Bill arises out of a vast experience of accidents caused by inadequately fenced machinery. With a little homework one could expatiate at some length on the background to this clause, and the reasons for its inclusion here. It follows a long experience of trade unions and others of the operation of the Factories Acts, but I will spare the Committee detail on that. I shall not go into that aspect at any great length. But it is an important matter and the trade unions have a vast experience of this, as have the factories inspectors and others. I would add that there can be no justification whatsoever for exempting the family employee from the wise protection, the good protection, of this safety provision. I would appeal to noble Lords to read Clause 17 before deciding that this Amendment would press too hard on the family concern. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("except section 17 thereof,")—(Lord Champion.)
LORD MCNAIR: I beg to support this Amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I am disturbed by the thought of the exclusion of these small family concerns. There are various safety provisions contained in the Bill, most of which are referred to in the seven Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I can well understand the desire to economise the time of the inspectorate by rendering it unnecessary for them to visit these small concerns, but I must remind the Committee of the sanctions for the enforcement of a Bill of this type and the remedies for a breach of the provisions of a Bill of this type. Towards the end of the Bill we find several clauses dealing with
480
offences. But there is another very important sanction which attaches to a Bill of this character, and notably to legislation concerning the Factories Acts—and this Bill is first cousin to the Factories Acts. That is a civil action for damages brought for a breach of statutory responsibility.
The effect of Clause 2 as it stands at present is this. Suppose that I have a job in a shop owned and managed by my uncle, and that all the other employees are within the various degrees of affinity and consanguinity described in this clause; and let us suppose that I am injured as a result of the fact that exposed machinery has not been properly fenced in accordance with the general requirements of this Bill. In that event, my position is that I have no civil remedy for damages against the owner, against my employer. It is true that I get my very inferior compensation for an industrial injury, but I am deprived of my right to bring an action for damages; and anyone who is familiar with the Factories Acts knows that the existence of that civil remedy for damages arising from a breach of its provisions is one of the most powerful sanctions for the enforcement of that legislation.
Nobody, of course, wishes to encourage unnecessary litigation within a family, and one does not like the idea of people suing their fathers or uncles just because their fathers or uncles have failed to comply with the Act. But from the point of view of the community it seems to me quite wrong that, just because a person happens to be related within these degrees to his employer, he should be deprived of this remedy. If I am working in the shop of an uncle and sustain an injury, although I may get my compensation for industrial injury I have no action. If I cross the street and take a job with a stranger and he is guilty of a breach of the provisions of this Act, not only do I get compensation for my industrial injury but I get something very much more: I have an action for damages because of a breach of a statutory duty. Therefore, I venture to hope that the noble Lord in charge of this Bill will very carefully consider whether, in the interests of the economy of the time of the inspectorate or for some other reason, it is safe and right to deprive these young relatives of the employer in the shop of this remedy;

481
and, much more important, as a matter of public policy, whether it is right to remove this very powerful sanction of an action for damages for a breach of the provisions of an Act of this kind.
4.47 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment so admirably moved by my noble friend Lord Champion. The first point I would make, is that the Association of Public Health Inspectors, whose members will have the responsibility of carrying out the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act, are firmly of the opinion, as can be plainly seen by the number of Amendments which have been put down on the Marshalled List, that the exemptions from various responsibilities are far too wide and will destroy the value of the Act in a most substantial way. Quite seriously, I should like to ask the Minister to consider withdrawing this clause entirely from the Bill, because not only are there the wide exceptions which the clause provides—unfairly, as I think my noble friend Lord Champion has clearly demonstrated—but there is the difficulty with which the inspectors, acting under the provisions of this legislation, will be confronted when carrying out their duties.
Obviously, this clause will apply, in the main, to very small shops: it must do, in the nature of things. Will the Minister tell me, or tell those who will be responsible, how an inspector, when he calls at a shop, will be able to identify or know who are the relatives of the employer? If the employer produces a lady and says, "This is my wife", or if he says, "This is my son", or, "This is my daughter", will the inspector have to ask for the marriage certificate or the birth certificates of the children? And even if they are produced, what conclusive evidence is there that those certificates apply to those persons? The clause is a most unsatisfactory one. No other clause in the Bill has so many Amendments put down to it; demonstrably it is a clause to which there are far-reaching objections. Quite apart from this Amendment and the other Amendments that will be proposed, I think this clause—as I am sure will be demonstrated beyond peradventure at the end of the considerations of these
482
Amendments—ought not to stand in the final shape of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: This clause would appear to be designed for the laudable purpose of helping the small shopkeeper; therefore I do not intend to try to counter the arguments that have been put up by noble Lords opposite. I wish merely to suggest that if it is to be retained it will be as well that it should be extended a little further by including nephews, nieces and possibly grand-nieces and grandnephews, because all of us who are familiar with small businesses know that very often the main help of the shopkeeper is a nephew or a niece rather than a direct descendant. Furthermore, even if that is not fully acceptable, I wish to draw attention to the rather ridiculous position which will arise where it would be legal to employ one's son or daughter but not the wife or husband of such son or daughter. Very often a person employs his son-in-law or daughter-in-law, and if this principle is to be maintained—and I think it is a good thing that it should be—this small extension will help further.
LORD NEWTON: It is perfectly true that under the Bill as it stands family businesses are excluded from its scope altogether. This has been a deliberate decision on the part of the Government, reached after very careful thought. What these Amendments do is to bring family businesses within its scope in regard to the provisions relating to safety and fire. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, evidently thinks the Amendment does not go far enough, and he said the whole of Clause 2 should be omitted; in other words, that these small family businesses should be covered by the Bill in its entirety.
LORD BURDEN: That really is the point of most of the Amendments.
LORD NEWTON: With great respect, I think it is not. The purpose of the Amendments is to bring these family businesses within the scope of the Bill in respect of provisions relating to safety and fire. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for discussing all these Amendments together.
LORD CHAMPION: What I said was that there are certain general considerations which would apply to them all. I

483
set out the general considerations; but I hope to return to a discussion of each Amendment as I come to it, because clearly there are some points which ought to be put on each of the Amendments.
LORD NEWTON: I meant to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for covering them altogether in so far as general considerations apply, as I want to explain to your Lordships now. I think everybody appreciates that in the premises we are discussing employers' children employed in the business may, or could, suffer accidents from dangerous machinery or from fire. But it seems to me that the really essential point behind Clause 2 is whether a business in which only close relatives are employed should be subjected to the whole of the administrative business of registration and inspection in order to enforce this group of provisions, or any provisions. As I explained to your Lordships in the Second Reading debate, the Government believe we should be interfering unreasonably in the running of small family businesses if this were so. The Government believe the close family relationship is the best safeguard in these matters, and, consequently, Clause 2 is in the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord say whether that attitude applies to the Factories Act? There are no exclusions in the Factories Act for family businesses.
LORD NEWTON: No, it does not apply. We are not discussing the Factories Act. Conditions in the factories, as we know, are in many ways very different from conditions in small family businesses, which will mostly be small shops. The Government believe that the parents' wish to protect their children—and surely this is the wish of most parents—is as likely to be an effective safeguard as the occasional visit of an inspector; and I should have thought in most cases it would be a much more effective safeguard. My noble friend Lord Mansfield drew attention to the fact that the definition of "family" for the purpose of Clause 2 is limited; and it is. For instance, if an uncle or aunt, niece, nephew or cousin or any of the in-laws is employed, then the Bill will apply to the business. My noble friend thought the scope of the clause ought to be
484
widened a little to include relatives less close. That is the opposite point of view; I think you can make out a case for it in the same way that you can make a good case on general grounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has, for his Amendment.
But what it really comes down to is that this is a question of principle on which we have to make up our minds. Obviously, on a question of principle opinions can differ. One of the things the Government had in mind is that it is doubtful whether it would be wise in a Statute of this kind to make it possible for one member of a family to inform against another very close member. I should have thought that there were enough forces in the world to-day making for the disruption of family life without our going out of our way to add one more to them. At any rate, that is the general philosophy we had in mind in putting Clause 2 in the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, said that, as a result of Clause 2, the employee of a small family business would not have adequate civil remedy against his employer. I understand that members of a family business, which will be excluded by this clause, would not be debarred from exercising their right to bring civil actions in respect of personal injuries arising out of their work. They would have to prove negligence upon the part of their employer, who would be a close relative. They would not be able to bring action on a breach of statutory duty, which I think was the point the noble Lord had in mind. I would ask noble Lords to remember that in this clause we are concerned with very small businesses. They could not be anything else, because they employ only members of a family. I should have thought that it follows from that that in almost every case, if there were serious injury, the money would not be there to provide compensation to a member of the family on a very large scale.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, asked me how, when an inspector went into a shop, he was to know whether the employees were closely related. I am speaking without careful thought, but I think the answer to the noble Lord is in Clause 49, which requires employers to give notice in writing if they are covered

485
by this Bill and owners of small family businesses, who are not covered, are not required to register.
LORD BURDEN: With due respect, that does not answer my point at all. How could the inspector identify any persons said to be relatives?
LORD NEWTON: I think that if the noble Lord considers what I have said, and is good enough to read Clause 49, he will find that the onus is on everyone covered by this Bill to register himself as being covered. It follows from that that the inspector need not bother himself about any business legally entitled not to register. These are the reasons why Clause 2 is in the Bill and why I am not in a position to accept the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has in mind. I do not suppose that I will have convinced all noble Lords that I am right, but, as I say, this is a matter of opinion on a question of principle, and I ask your Lordships to recognise that the Government believe as strongly that they are right, as I have no doubt some noble Lords feel that they are wrong.
LORD SHEPHERD: That was a most unsatisfactory reply. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue when the noble Lord said that he cannot accept the Amendments of my noble friend before they have been moved. If that is what he said, it seems to me extraordinary. I do not go so far as to say that the noble Lord has treated the Committee with contempt.
LORD NEWTON: I do not think that is fair criticism. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, as he said in his speech, was concerned with general principles, and so was I. I should have thought that I gave a pretty clear indication, when referring to this part of the Bill on Second Reading, that the Government were not prepared to compromise on the contents of Clause 2. What I was doing this afternoon was to say, in rather greater detail and at greater length, what I said on Second Reading.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord dealt with the general principles and then referred specifically to the matter under Amendment No. 14. Is it not a fact that, under the Factories Act, there is no exclusion of family businesses from the provisions for dangerous machinery? Section 17 of the Factories Act deals,
486
for instance, with the exposed parts of machinery. This is not a matter of broad principle. The Government may be right in saying that family businesses could be excluded from the necessity of having proper sanitary arrangements or washing facilities for the family, but there is no justification whatever to exclude certain provisions for the protection of sons and daughters working in the family business.
May I ask the noble Lord to turn to page 13? Clause 20 (3) (c) says that regulations may provide for
"prohibiting the sale or letting on hire for use in premises in Great Britain to which this Act applies … of any machinery, plant, equipment or appliance which does not comply with requirements of the regulations".
Later on, it makes it an offence to sell or hire machinery and equipment which does not comply with the safety regulations. By the refusal of the Government to accept Amendment No. 14, and the inference that they will refuse to accept the others, a manufacturer or hirer can sell or hire dangerous machinery to a family business and nothing can be done about it in law. That is what the Minister is saying. Dangerous machinery cannot be sold or hired to an ordinary business with employees, but it would be perfectly legitimate to sell the same equipment to a family business. I cannot believe that that is what the Government have in mind. If that is the Government's attitude, although we shall not hold up the Committee on this Amendment, we shall have to consider what we are going to do about the clause when it is put to the Committee.
LORD CHAMPION: With my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made a very weak case in support of the Government's attitude on this Amendment. I have a tremendous respect for the noble Lord, but it seemed to me that he was less sure of himself than usual. I rather felt that his conscience was pricking him about what he was telling us about the rejection of Amendment No. 14. I do not think that he dealt adequately with the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, who has had great experience of this sort of thing, about the effect that the exclusion of certain types of machinery will have on the right of members of a family to bring a civil action against their employer, who may be a relative; and so

487
many of these relatives do stand vis-à-vis the head of the family so that they might be precisely in the position of a wage or salary earner.
I disagree profoundly with the suggestion that the close relationship of the people engaged will be the best safeguard: I think that is quite nonsense. Indeed, the Government have already recognised that it is nonsense by the Inclusion of the small family farm under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956. There were many of those sections which bore rather hardly on the small family business, but in 1956 the Government, quite rightly, did not consider this aspect and made no provision whatever for excluding them from the somewhat onerous provisions of that Act.
The other point with which the noble Lord made some play was that we are considering here small businesses. I agree. But these small businesses are in competition, too, with other small businesses. The other small businesses in which relatives are not employed will have the whole weight of this Bill directed against them. Why do it in the case of one, where a few relatives are employed, and not in the other cases, where perhaps a smaller number of non-relatives are employed? I think that the Government have made out an extremely weak case on this Amendment, and I hope they will have a stronger case on some of the later ones, if they are going to reject them. I must say that I did not like the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in virtually rejecting the rest of the Amendments, and I believe them to be of such an important nature that I propose to move most of them.
LORD McNAIR: May I clear up one small point? The noble Lord, Lord Newton, was absolutely right when he said that the action based on negligence would exist even if this clause remained in the Bill. The reason why I laid so much stress on the action for damages for breach of statutory duty is that it is a much more powerful and simpler action than an action for negligence, which is notoriously difficult to prove. If the noble Lord would consult his legal advisers, I think they would tell him that the experience under the Factories
488
Acts is that an action based upon a breach of statutory duty is much more likely to succeed than one based on negligence. I should like to make one further comment. I said that one does not like the idea of encouraging members of the family to litigate among themselves, but it must be remembered that in the vast majority of cases the injured relative is not suing dear father or dear uncle, but the insurance company, a step behind.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.15 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved in subsection (1) after "Act" to insert "except sections 18 and 19 thereof". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill. Here we are dealing with young persons under 18 years of age. Clause 18 deals with the avoidance of exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning material. It was included in the Bill as the result of powerful representations made in another place by some of my honourable friends who happen to have exceptional knowledge of this type of difficulty and danger. During the passage of the Bill there, a case was cited which illustrates the dangers to employees and people working even in shops. My honourable friend in the other place was quoting, and I will quote the same words. He said:
"'After having cleaned an electrically powered bacon-slicing machine, a girl 20 years old was replacing the guard when this slipped. She endeavoured to prevent it falling. She inadvertently brought her left hand on to the blade of the machine. There was some evidence that at that time the machine was set in motion by brushing against the knee-level starter switch. As a consequence, she suffered the amputation of the whole of her left hand'".
The honourable Member to whom I refer is known to me as the head of a great trade union with vast experience in this field. He told the Committee in another place that half the cases of this sort which are brought to the notice of the union involve persons under the age of 18.
It seems to me that there is not the slightest justification for the exclusion of a grandson, a son or a brother from the protection of Clause 18, any more than there would have been for the exclusion of similar relatives under Section 7 of the Agriculture (Safety, Health

489
and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956. That section (I am sure many noble Lords will know something about this, because they have agricultural interests) gave the Minister, by regulation, power to prohibit children from driving vehicles, machinery or implements used in agriculture, and prohibited them from riding on them in certain cases. I remember that when that Act was going through another place cases were cited of children being killed or maimed through falling off the coupling between the tractor and trailer, and the tragedy of so many of those cases was that the tractor was often being driven by the father or a brother. It is right that cases of that sort should be dealt with under legislation, and Parliament so decided.
In all these matters (and this applies to what we are talking about now, youngsters under 17) familiarity does breed contempt, so far as the use of many of these things is concerned, and from this relatives are no more exempt than any other employees. Much the same consideration applies to Clause 19. If it is necessary for non-relatives to train in the use of dangerous machines, then it is equally necessary that relatives should be so trained. I am not going to speak for any length of time on this Amendment, but I feel that there is a case for further consideration by the Government of these points dealing with young people under the age of 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("except sections 18 and 19 thereof,").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD NEWTON: I do not think either the noble Lord, Lord Champion, or your Lordships, will be surprised when I say that I am not able to accept this Amendment, either. As I explained when replying to the noble Lord earlier, the Government deliberately decided that, in their judgment, it was right to exclude family businesses from all the provisions of the Bill. Obviously, it is possible to make out a persuasive case in favour of this exception or that, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has done, but the position is that we think it is right, for the reasons I gave, that these businesses should be completely excluded. We have stood on that in another place, and I am standing on it in your Lordships'
490
House to-day. I would remind your Lordships again that the Government were very forthcoming and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, magnanimous in another place in accepting Amendments from the Opposition which were designed to widen the scope of the Bill. I am sorry, but the Government are not prepared willingly to widen the scope of the Bill further, either to accept detailed Amendments to make exceptions to the provisions of Clause 2, or to agree to the deletion of Clause 2 altogether.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred to my phrasing on Second Reading, and I do not withdraw it at all. I think the Government were generous and magnanimous in accepting Amendments, and it came to us a much better Bill. But that does not in any way alter the arguments in regard to this series of Amendments. Here we have a family business in which the father is employing, as an employee, a son or daughter aged 17 or 18. The Government do not exclude the employer from the requirements of an employer under the National Insurance Act. As an employer, he still has to purchase and stamp the card of a son or a daughter as an employee. Why? Because that son or daughter has to be protected for industrial injuries, for sickness benefit, and for unemployment if there is a dispute with the father and the son becomes unemployed. Equally, the building up of insurance contributions counts in the final pension which the son or daughter will receive on retirement.
This is the point I wish to make. Under the National Insurance Act the Government require a family business to insure members of the family for their protection, and yet the Government are excluding such individuals from the provisions of protection under this Bill, particularly with regard to machinery. My noble friend Lord Champion referred to the case of an unfortunate girl who dropped the guard on a bacon machine. That is a very good example, because it is one of the most dangerous machines within the whole of the provision trade—indeed, I would say within the general retail trade. Many large firms—I will not mention names, because it would be unfair—engaged in the provision trade prohibit employees even on the bacon

491
counter from cleaning the bacon machine. These firms detail one employee to clean the whole of the machines within the shop. If it is necessary to protect the employees within a large-scale undertaking, it is equally necessary to require that the person within the small business shall be protected as well. In this Bill there is no protection whatever for a young boy of 14 or 15 (working, perhaps, out of school hours as an errand boy, within the provisions of the Factories Act) from cleaning the bacon machine, or being told to do so by his father.
If there is a severe accident it is a heavy responsibility on the father, but it is also a heavy responsibility on this House, because we have a duty to protect the individual against even his own parents. We protect him against an employer, but we will not protect him against his father if his father happens to be the owner of the shop, except if the son is employed in the business and the father takes on another assistant. As soon as another assistant comes in the shop, then the protection is placed on the son. Is it not just fantastic that on Saturday night, when the shop closes, the son is excluded from the Act, but on Monday morning, when they start another assistant, the son is included in the Act?
LORD NEWTON: I should have thought that the noble Lord would be pleased about that, from his point of view, and not complaining.
LORD LINDGREN: I am pleased that he is included on Monday morning when there is another assistant, but it is fantastic that he should not be included when he is the only assistant. After all, the Government are concerned with protecting the small man and encouraging the small business. Does the noble Lord not want the small business to grow? If the small business, which at first could afford only to carry the son or daughter as the employee, grows and employs other employees, why the distinction, one from the other? I think this is very wrong of the Government. It is wrong that persons should be left unprotected, and I see no difference whatever between requiring the father to pay industrial injuries insurance in his National Health Insurance contribution, and requiring him to protect the
492
Son from moving machinery and from cleaning dangerous machinery.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.28 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved in subsection (1), after "Act" to insert, "except section 20 thereof,". The noble Lord said: I must continue my weary progress along this line of trying to ensure some safeguard for people in family employment. I believe that this House has a definite responsibility in these matters, and if anything happens in these family businesses which might have been prevented had we secured these Amendments, some little conscience-stirring must take place among those who have rejected them.
I would ask the Committee to look at this lengthy clause which deals with regulations for securing the health and safety of workers in these premises we have been discussing. Subsection (1) of Clause 20 says:
"The Minister may, as respects premises to which this Act applies or any class of such premises, make special regulations for protecting persons working in such premises or, as the case may be, in such premises of that class against risks of bodily injury or injury to health arising out of the use of any machinery, plant, equipment, appliance or substance, the carrying on of any operation or the use of any process."
That is a very wide subsection. Subsection (3) sets out the regulations which may be made, and they have very great breadth. They are essential regulations, otherwise the Government would never have included them in this Bill, and are intended to safeguard human beings. Every Committee that has ever considered this matter has agreed that these regulations and these safeguards are necessary. The Government regard them as essential, or the Minister of Labour would never have included them in this Clause 20. What I say about this is, that if they are aimed at Bill Jones, who employs a few workers, then, equally, they should be aimed at John Smith who employs a few relatives, and John Smith should run the same risk of being guilty of an offence as Bill Jones if he contravenes the regulations. My noble friend Lord Shepherd also dealt with the same aspect of this Clause 20 when we were considering my first Amendment, No. 14, and he pointed to the fact that there seemed to be not

493
the slightest justification for excluding the family business from the provisions of this very lengthy Clause 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("except section 20 thereof,")—(Lord Champion.)
LORD NEWTON: For the reasons which I have now given twice I must recommend to your Lordships that you reject this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Might I ask the Minister whether it is therefore going to be lawful to sell dangerous equipment to a family business—equipment that does not comply with the regulations that will be necessary—before that dangerous machinery is sold to other types of shops and employers?
LORD HAWKE: Could my noble friend tell me what number of accidents have occurred in family businesses through dangerous machinery, and so on?
LORD NEWTON: I have no information about that immediately to hand, but I should have thought a very small number indeed. I cannot give the noble Lord an answer now, but I will find out for him.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" to insert, "except sections 28, 30, 31 and 32 thereof,". The noble Lord said: I am definitely moving this Amendment, which deals with the clauses which are to affect fire precautions. In this connection I am bound to ask what sort of logic is it which says in subsection (1) of Clause 28:
"All premises to which this Act applies shall be provided with such means of escape in case of fire for the persons employed to work therein as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case."
Why should the family business be excluded from reasonable fire precautions? It would seem to me that by the exclusion of the premises visualised in Clause 2, what we are, in effect, saying to-day is that one is justified in burning a few relatives but not a few employees. I believe that the maintenance of the means of escape in the on:, case is equally as important as in the other.
The Minister in another place quite rightly rejected an Amendment which would have excepted from these pro-
494
visions premises in which not more than five people are habitually employed at a time. His rejection, I thought, made it quite clear that an establishment employing as few as five or less number of non-relatives must provide reasonable means of escape in case of fire, but an establishment employing very many more than five, provided they are relatives, need not provide reasonable means of escape. One of the general considerations that I made before moving my Amendment No. 14 has, I think, great force here. One small man would have to spend perhaps a considerable amount on structural alterations to comply with the fire precautions to this Bill, while another small man employing relatives would be free to spend his capital on equipment which would improve his competitive efficiency. I and my noble friends give great weight to this Amendment, and we most strongly urge the Government to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("except sections 28, 30, 31 and 32 thereof,")—(Lord Champion.)
LORD HAWKE: I wonder whether my noble friend, when he comes to reply to this, will give the figures of casualties in the particular premises to which this Clause applies. I confess that, though I have tried to obtain them, I have not managed to do so; but I can tell your Lordships that the figures of fire deaths in this country are normally divided into those occurring at work and those occurring at home. "At work", of course, includes factories and all sorts of premises, and we know that every now and then there has been a severe fire in a factory which has caused a number of deaths. The average of those killed per annum at work has been 47 males and 6 females, whereas in the home the number has been 192 males and 383 females. I have not been able, I am afraid, to discover which of those deaths at work occurred in businesses where only the family were employed, but I should be rather inclined to guess nil. Therefore, the noble Lords opposite are proposing to set up a large inspectorate to inspect nothing.
LORD SHEPHERD: No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is relieved that the pressure has been lifted from him by

495
the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I would suggest to him that 47 deaths is something serious.
LORD HAWKE: I am afraid the noble Lord has misunderstood my figures. I said 47 deaths in all forms at work, the vast majority of which obviously occurred in factories.
LORD SHEPHERD: I fully appreciate that; but 47 deaths are 47 deaths.
We are moving from those Amendments which deal merely with the position of the family in business, and this Amendment is the first dealing with those aspects of a family business which cannot be considered in isolation. As I understand it, a fire prevention officer or a fire inspector cannot now enter a shop unless there are one or more families living above the premises; in other words, these inspectors are prohibited from entering any shop if there is an office above it. Therefore, there could be a building in which there is a shop owned and controlled by a family, on the first floor of which there is an office employing ten people. As I understand it, because of Clause 2 of this Bill (which exempts completely from all the provisions of inspection) a situation could arise in which a shop, perhaps with inflammable materials, was not subject to any form of inspection or control, while above it were persons employed in office administration.
I fully accept that in Clause 53 the inspector has power to enter any premises, but it would appear to me, unless the noble Lord can give me an assurance to the contrary, that this refers merely to premises dealt with in the Bill; I do not believe that it refers to premises outside the Bill. If that is the case—and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, shakes his head—we have a situation in which we could have a building in which there are two or three premises, because it is quite clear within the Bill that a building could contain two or three premises, and downstairs there could be a private family business with their premises full of dangerous materials, not subject, as it is to-day, to any form of inspection or control, while upstairs there were office workers. But if this shop with the dangerous material had outside employees it would be subject to
496
control, and obviously there would then be greater safety for the workers upstairs.
It would seem to me, if what I have said is correct, that certainly this Amendment should be accepted, not on the basis that it gives special protection to the family which the Government appear to have rejected, but because at least it gives the necessary protection to those who will be working upstairs in the example I have given; in other words, it will give the same protection as though all the people employed in this building were employees within the scope of the Bill. It would seem to me completely farcical that you should put employees upstairs in jeopardy merely because you wish to have a family business downstairs completely excluded from the control.
LORD AMPTHILL: I was going to take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put. I am rather concerned about this danger of fire. In the neighbourhood in London in which I live there are three different shopping areas (we call them villages) and in each one is a shop selling general household goods, among them paraffin and turpentine and so forth, which is stored in premises in the backyard or in the back of the shop. If the shop catches fire the people can run out into the street. But above these shops are dwellings and offices. In at least one of these three shops that I know of the husband and wife run it and presumably own it. In the other the man who owns it employs staff. Presumably his place would be inspected, whereas the one where the husband and wife run it and have the most dangerous stock, paraffin and turpentine, cleaning materials, and such like, is not inspected at all.
I should like the noble Lord when he comes to reply to give an assurance that under other legislation—I am very ignorant about local by-laws and other legislation—there is something which protects not only the shopkeeper and his staff from fire but, even more important, also the people above. I foresee a possible danger when the shop closes at seven o'clock at night. Supposing somebody has left a cigarette burning. The whole thing might explode. There is no means of escape for the people in the dwellings above.
LORD NEWTON: Of course, in general, one object of Clause 2, as I explained to your Lordships, is to prevent inspectors from constantly going into these premises which are used by small family businesses. That is one of the main objects of the exercise. I would invite the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friend's attention to Clause 53, which says, inter alia:
"… an inspector … shall, for the purpose of the execution of this Act, have power to do all or any of the following, things, namely—

(a) at any reasonable time to enter any such premises as the following, and to inspect the whole or any part thereof and anything therein, that is to say:—

(i) any premises to which this Act applies".

And, further down:
"(vi) any premises with respect to which"—
that means any premises, and not just any premises to which this Act applies, which is covered in (a)(i)—
"he has reasonable cause to believe that materials of a kind prescribed by virtue of Section 29 (1) (c) of this Act are therein used or are therein stored … being premises situate underneath premises to which this Act applies".
The whole object of that provision is to enable the inspector to form an opinion as to whether or not there are adequate methods of escape from premises above, which I think covers the point made by the noble Lord and by my noble friend.
I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Hawke for the information he gave your Lordships, which I did not have. It encourages me to go on to say what I am about to say now. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Champion, meant to imply it, but at one point in his speech it seemed to me that he was suggesting to your Lordships that people are not concerned to see that their close relatives are not burned. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord, Champion, would wish to suggest that. It is obviously a ridiculous proposition. Among other reasons, it is precisely because the Government believe that people are, on the whole, more concerned about the safety and welfare and happiness of their close relatives than about other people that Clause 2 is in this Bill. Once again I must advise your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: I referred on the previous Amendment to the National Insurance Act. There are many self-employed men who are prosecuted for failing to maintain their own insurance contributions. By failing to maintain them they are endangering a pension for their widows should they be so unfortunate as to die. To say that persons are tender towards their own relatives where money is involved is carrying it a bit too far.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps I may ask the Minister this. He said that one of the purposes of this clause was in fact to stop inspectors from going into these small family businesses. Is he saying that in fact shops inspectors do not visit? The noble Lord admits that shops inspectors go in. I appreciate we are on the fire section now. Which inspectors is he wanting to stop from visiting shops?
LORD NEWTON: The object is to try to see that inspectors do not have to go into these premises more than is necessary. But, under Clause 2, these premises which we are discussing would be subjected to the whole procedure of registration and inspection; in other words, they would be subjected to an entirely new scheme of control. As I say, the Government think it would be wrong to subject these premises in which only close members of the family work to that control.
LORD SHEPHERD: In view of the assurance the Minister has given, would he consider making more specific the words "any premises" in Clause 53 (1) (a) (vi)?—because to many of us it looks as though the premises referred to there, in spite of the fact that the words appear also earlier in the clause, are only those within the scope of the Bill. If the Minister is right, will he please consider words to indicate clearly that all premises, both in and outside this Bill, can in fact be inspected?
May I ask the Minister this question? If an inspector should enter those premises and find that things are not as they should be, does this Bill mean that those people may be then subject to a fine of £20? I do not see how they can be subject to such a fine, because, in fact, they are exempted from the Bill. If the inspector finds that the conditions in the shop are such as to be a danger to the persons above, apart from being a danger

499
to the family in the business, what course of action can he or the local authority take? If the Minister cannot reply now, perhaps he will consider this and let me know. It is no good having an inspection unless the inspector can enforce his decision.
There is one other point that I would make in this matter. It would seem to me to be extremely hard for the persons on the other floors or in the other part of the building to have to carry out the conditions of this Bill, particularly in the case of fire escapes. If there is dangerous material in the shop, obviously the building has to be given fire escape appliances—it may be an iron staircase and the like. If this is because the shop has these dangerous materials it would seem hard that the entire cost of the fire appliances and fire escapes should fall upon the occupants upstairs. If all of the occupiers—that is, the occupiers of the shop and of the offices upstairs—were within the scope of this Bill, the matter could be taken before the court and the court could divide the cost equitably between those concerned. If, however, the offices above the shop have to provide the fire appliances and escapes because a small business is exempted from the provisions of the Bill, the entire cost then falls upon the office occupiers, or whoever may be upstairs. That seems to me to be extremely hard. I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider that point between now and the next stage. However, I am quite sure that what he has said on this particular Amendment does not satisfy my noble friends on this side, and no doubt we shall take the same course as we have done on previous Amendments.
LORD NEWTON: Of course I will consider what the noble Lord has just said, but I should explain again that the purpose of Clause 53 (1) (a) (vi) is to enable the inspector to enter any premises. I am quite certain that "any premises" means "any premises", and no words added would make it any clearer. That is the object of this subsection: to enable the inspector to carry out his duty of deciding whether or not the provisions made for the premises above, being premises subject to the Act, are adequate. That is the object of the
500
exercise. But the family business premises, whether they have flammable materials or explosives stored in them or not, are not covered by the Bill. Before the noble Lord gets too excited about that, he must realise that if these flammable materials are stored or are looked after in such a way as to make it likely that the people on the floor above are endangered, it would surely be inevitable that the people below in the premises concerned are equally liable to be burned; and again, we come back to what I was saying earlier: that surely people are concerned to see that their close relatives are not endangered by fire.
LORD AIREDALE: That really is not a valid point. If the people in the shop downstairs are liable to be burned, the answer is that they can walk out. The people upstairs cannot walk out. That is the distinction.
LORD NEWTON: That is precisely why the Bill contains Clause 53, and particularly subsection (1) (a) (vi), which is what I was talking about.
LORD SHEPHERD: Without the inspector being able to enforce it, as it now appears.
LORD CHAMPION: I think enough has been said on this matter of fire precautions to justify the Ministers in having a look at this subject again between now and the Report stage, and I sincerely hope that they will, despite the fact that they have been adamant about Clause 2 up to now. I must say that I did not think that Lord Hawke's point was a valid one in this connection. He asked how many small premises in which relatives are employed have suffered casualties; and then said, or rather suggested, that the number must be very small indeed. Frankly, I do not think it matters whether the number is small or large. What I think matters is that we should do everything to protect people who are engaged in the type of businesses which will be included under this Bill when it becomes an Act.
We are told that the Government carefully considered this Bill before they presented it to Parliament. They had plenty of time in which to do it, from 1951 onwards. But, having given this most careful consideration, they then thought it right to include these fire

501
provisions to cover small businesses, tiny shops, as well as larger office premises, so I do not think there is much in this point about size and the fact that not many have been burnt up to now. I think a sufficient case has been made out by those who have spoken against the Government on this Amendment to justify their having a further look at it between now and the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of his intention to move to add to subsection (1):
"provided that the number in such premises does not exceed five."
The noble Lord said: I had intended to move this Amendment, but in view of the unsatisfactory replies in regard to this clause that we have had from the Government this afternoon, I feel there is little point in moving it. I shall recommend my noble friends later to take appropriate action on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. I do not move this Amendment.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: Before we leave this clause I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Newton, what now happens to those provisions of the Shops Act, 1950 which are repealed by this particular measure. The noble Lord will be aware (this is so far as my information goes; perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong) that there are a large number of provisions under the Shops Act, and that shops inspectors visit premises of the kind in regard to which he now wants to refuse an inspector the opportunity of a visit. Certain of these provisions will go on, and the shops inspectors will have to differentiate between those premises in regard to which they have wider powers and those in regard to which their powers are less.
There are certain provisions in the Shops Act which, so far as I can see—and I should like an assurance on this—apply to these premises. There are certain legal definitions which also apply. When one looks at the Schedule to this Bill (and I hope the noble Lord will interrupt me if I am on a point which has no validity) one sees that a number of the provisions in the Shops Act, 1950,
502
will now disappear, in particular Sections 37 to 39. Section 37 relates to the question of seats for female shopworkers. I suppose the noble Lord will tell us that anybody will always provide a seat for a member of his family. Then there are provisions relating to sanitation and other arrangements. I do not know whether this is relevant, but what is more important is that there are certain legal aspects, including the definition of an occupier of a shop.
In the Bill under discussion there is an important section which establishes questions of liability. There is a definition of "owner". The definition of "owner" in the present Bill is no doubt satisfactory, but the definition of "owner" in the Shops Act, 1950, is now to be repealed. This question of ownership will none the less apply to small shops. I should be very surprised if the Government have not thought it out, but, having heard so much of the debate this afternoon, I have become rather suspicious whether they have considered the implications of what they are doing in excluding family businesses.
The only other point I should like to make is that these family businesses will still be subject to the law in a number of important respects of a kind which might even be thought to be onerous. Anybody who is familiar with the Shops Act, the Wages Councils orders, and so on—and some of your Lordships will have the job of administering them—will know that they still apply and will still be subject to control and enforcement. Therefore, it is a pretty weak argument put forward by the Government, that they are exempting these particular premises from onerous proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, gave numerous examples of where the law is still active. The law is still active in particular aspects of the family business and of the shop, and I hope we shall be given an explanation of what now is going to happen, particularly in regard to the legal definitions of "ownership".
LORD CARRINGTON: Since I understand it is the intention of the noble Lords opposite to divide on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, I think I ought to say a word about the debate which has just taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, who has most persuasively moved the

503
Amendments in his name, has suggested that some of the arguments he has adduced this afternoon are so strong that the Government ought once again to look at them and to have second thoughts. Of course, anything that comes from the Benches opposite, from the noble Lord himself, will be looked at again, and I undertake to do that; but I do not want to mislead the House this evening by suggesting that there is any great likelihood of the Government's changing their mind.
My noble friend Lord Newton has had the unenviable task of saying the same thing over and over again; and he has said it, if I may say so, very clearly and very well. I realise, as no doubt does everybody in your Lordships' Committee, that there is considerable feeling on the Benches opposite, and I think on the Liberal Benches as well, that family businesses should not be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Under this Bill they would be excluded from the provisions of the Shops Act about which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me. It seems to me that this is a problem on which we have a fundamental disagreement of principle between the two sides of the House. We on this side hold what I hope noble Lords opposite will believe to be quite sincere views on this subject, though they are utterly opposed to those held by noble Lords on the other side.
Noble Lords opposite feel strongly that there should be no exceptions to the safeguards for workpeople coming under the provisions of this Bill merely on account of family ties. Lord Lindgren cited examples of cases which bear out his arguments. We on this side of the House (I think I speak for my noble friends behind me) feel that we ought to be very careful in bringing forward legislation, even legislation which is of a beneficial kind, as this Bill is, before we interfere too much in the affairs of the family. We believe that the family is the basis of our national life, and we do not want that family to be subject too much to the intrusion of inspectors, regulations and the like.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord in a very eloquent passage? May I ask why previous Governments have seen fit to apply cer-
504
tain of these measures to family businesses? He realises that this is a step backward now.
LORD CARRINGTON: The other Acts from which the family businesses are not excluded are, of course, of quite a different character—
LORD SHACKLETON: They are not.
LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to finish what I was saying. I believe that the other Acts are of quite a different character from the Bill we are discussing this afternoon. We believe that in the vast majority of cases the best safeguard for the welfare of the family is the family tie and affection which will prevent any exploitation, and we do not feel that paternalism—no doubt an admirable sentiment, and very much in evidence from noble Lords opposite—should go too far in interfering in what we believe to be stronger associations.
I notice that in Committee in another place there was, as there has been in this House, a complete divergence of view between the two sides, and the members of the Labour Party made speeches of similar character to those made by the Opposition this afternoon. I recognise, as indeed does the Minister of Labour, that this is a matter of balance—and a very delicate balance—between how far the State has the right, or should be allowed, to interfere in family affairs. We believe that a father or a mother naturally—and noble Lords seem to find this odd—wishes to see that his or her children are looked after, and we believe that that is probably a better safeguard than having an inspector to do it for them.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before we leave this point, would the noble Lord answer some of my questions? In particular, would he tell me what definition of "ownership" will apply in future? This is an important matter. At the end of this Bill there is a definition of "owner" and the previous definition of "owner" in the Shops Act is cancelled. In a small business what definition is going to apply? Presumably neither this one nor the one in the Shops Act. It may be the one in the Public Health Act—I do not know; I do not think the Government have thought this one out. There are a number of provisions which in the

505
past have applied to these small shops. These are now going to be cancelled, and some of them have legal significance. We are not just discussing a question of extending something new; it is a question of removing certain provisions that have existed in the past. I do not think we can leave this without an explanation from the Government.
LORD CARRINGTON: I know that the Government have thought this out, but I must confess to your Lordships that I do not know the answer to the question about owners, which the noble Lord has asked me. This is a very intricate and difficult point, and I will make it my business to find out and let the noble Lord know.
LORD LINDGREN: I am sorry to delay the Committee, but the noble Lord reminds me of a case which came before me sitting as a magistrate. He refers to the affection of parents. There is an Act of Parliament, the Education Act, which requires a parent to send a child to school. It is not every parent who does so. If he does not, he is liable to be prosecuted. About six months ago, in the court in
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 2 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Cleanliness]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
which I sit, a parent was prosecuted for not sending a daughter to school. The reason given was that the parents owned a shop; the father worked at a firm in the locality, while the mother looked after the shop during the day-time. But because the mother was ill the child was kept away from school to attend to the shop. This is just the fantastic position we are getting into in this Bill. That father was prosecuted and fined for not sending his child to school. Yet under this Bill he is not required to protect that child against moving machinery, or against any other of the hazards which we have referred to in this Amendment. That is just an example which occurred to me, arising from the noble Lord's last statement, which shows the fantastic position into which the Government have now got in relation to this family business. I suppose that it arises because of the family relationships within the Government itself.
On Question Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Bethell, L.

Grenfell, L.

Margesson, V

Carrington, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President)

Mills, V.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Milverton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hereford, V.

Molson, L.

Conesford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Newall, L.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Newton, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Ferrers, E

Lothian, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Fortescue, E.

Luke, L.

Waleran, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Mansfield, E.

Wolverton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Terrington, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Walston, L.

Kenswood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Williams, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williamson, L.

Lawson, L.

6.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should like to draw attention in Clause 4 to what I think is a small, unfortunate metaphor. In subsection (2) of the clause there is a reference to "steps" which I think are, in this case, literal steps or

507
stairs; whereas in subsection (3) there are two references to "steps" which are, I think, metaphorical steps in that they are measures or methods. I am perfectly certain that in subsection (3) it is not supposed that the Minister is to make regulations to take away the literal steps referred to in subsection (2); and that the steps in subsection (3) are not going to be cleaned, as are the steps in subsection (2). I therefore suggest, if I might, a redrafting. I am sorry if it becomes very banal when you do so, but perhaps it would be better that subsection (3) should read as follows:
"The Minister may by regulations made as respects premises to which this Act applies, or any class of such premises, lay down, in addition to requirements necessary to secure compliance with the last foregoing subsection, such requirements necessary for the purpose of securing the cleanliness of premises to which the regulations apply and of the furniture, furnishings and fittings therein as may be prescribed by the regulations."
I commend that wording to my noble friend.
LORD CARRINGTON: I rather doubt whether those who read the Act or have to administer it will have quite the same sense of humour as my noble kinsman. Nevertheless, I will most certainly have a look at this subsection to see whether or not it needs redraftng. On the face of it, I must say that I should have thought it was fairly clear.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Overcrowding
(2) The number of persons habitually employed at a time to work in such a room as aforesaid shall not be such that the quotient derived by dividing by that number the number which expresses in square feet the area of the surface of the floor of the room is less than forty or the quotient derived by dividing by the first-mentioned number the number which expresses in cubic capacity of the room is less than four hundred.
(3) Subsection (2) of this section—

(b) shall not apply to a room to which members of the public are invited to resort; and

LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "forty" and insert "forty-seven". The noble Lord said:
508
I rise to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. The Amendment seeks to increase the area from 40 to 47 square feet. It is, in fact, an invitation to go back to the recommendation of the Gowers Committee, because in the Cowers Report it was recommended that the standard applicable to factories, under the Factories Act, of 47 square feet should be adopted as regards offices, shops and other premises. Why the Government have departed from that recommendation it is difficult to discern. It might be argued, of course, that there has not been sufficient time for those shops and offices and premises which will come under the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act to prepare, but they have had something like twelve years, and now they will have a further period of between three and four years in which to prepare their premises for proper compliance with the terms of the Act.
We all know, of course, that whatever minimum area is prescribed in the Act will not be the area which will be available for the persons who are working in the premises or in the rooms or offices. That matter is dealt with in the next Amendment, set down by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, so I will say nothing about that aspect of the matter, except that, with the development of mechanical accounting—computers, calculators, comptometers and machines of all sorts, kinds and descriptions—offices are in danger of becoming machine shops; and that circumstance, of course, indicates the importance of the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("forty") and insert ("forty-seven").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I think that, unlike the previous Amendments we have discussed, I can satisfy the noble Lord on this point. The Gowers Committee said that they thought the standard set by the Factories Act was a reasonable one, and they recommended that the standard of space set by that Act should be applied to all offices, subject only to a period of grace. They said that this standard would mean, in a modern office building, a space

509
of about 47 square feet for each employee. This, I think, is where the trouble comes in.
The standard in the Factories Act requires a minimum of 400 cubic feet for each person, discounting space more than 14 feet above the floor. The 47 square feet mentioned by the Cowers Committee for office accommodation was the result of applying the 400 cubic feet standard to a modern office room 8½ feet high. In such a room the Bill as at present drafted also requires 47 square feet, and if the ceiling is lower than 8½ feet it would require an even greater area. But for rooms with ceilings higher than 10 feet, the standard of 40 square feet in the Bill is in fact an improvement on the Gowers recommendation. The wording of the Bill is, I must confess to the noble Lord, rather obscure, and I had to read it several times, but I think that if he will look at the second line on page 5 of the Bill, at Clause 5, he will, on reading the two lines, see that what he seeks to do has in fact been done under the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation, and, if I may say so, for the slight indication of hope which accompanied it. In the circumstances indicated, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I shall look further into the matter and confirm it. I do not doubt that, so far as the noble Lord is concerned, what he has said is correct, but I should like to confirm it, especially when one is dealing with questions.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: May I add that, in the Cowers Report, the summary of recommendations does not mention 47 square feet? It says:
"A minimum of 400 cubic feet per person to be provided in every room in which employees are required to work."
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl is not being quite fair. They had earlier interpreted that, and obviously that recommendation was made in the light of their own estimate that it would provide 47 square feet.
LORD CARRINGTON: In any event, I think it is all right, because we accept 47 square feet in certain circumstances, as they suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.29 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that where the aforesaid area is reduced by the presence of any machinery, fixtures, furniture or fittings of a class or classes not exempted from the operation of this subsection by regulations made by the Minister, then that area as so reduced shall be taken to be the area of the surface of the floor for the purposes of this subsection."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I now seek to move takes us into what is admittedly rather a difficult field. I am aware that the Cowers Report did not deal specifically with the problem of overcrowding except rather more specifically, more directly, in the terms of health, ventilation, and the fact that too many people should not be pressed up against one another. They did not discuss or go fully into this problem of offices which have become so filled up with furniture, fittings, fixtures and machinery that they become unsatisfactory places in which to work.
I should be quite prepared to accept the 40 square feet minimum in any large office. In this I am fortified by the advice I have had in the past from people like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and others who have worked in the office field. Certainly in large offices 40 square feet is at the moment a reasonable figure and should provide space also for a desk, telephone and chair. I am talking about large offices. Small offices of 40 square feet, one-person offices, would not be very satisfactory, but I doubt that there will be many of these. The moment one starts putting more equipment into the office, however, the situation changes, and most good office employers take this into account. They realise that to have people working in too overcrowded conditions, in this particular sense of the word is unsatisfactory and bad for efficiency. But I would submit that it is more than bad for efficiency: it is bad for the happiness and for the health of the workers concerned.
There will be certain offices, even large offices, where there is a great deal of storage, filing cabinets, et cetera, and where 50 square feet or even 60 square feet is the figure to be applied. I happen to be concerned in this field, and in certain groups of offices in my firm we work to 60 square feet as a standard

511
because we know, first of all, that a lot of records are going to be there and also there will be a certain amount of visiting, because they are personnel offices. One of the effects of the advance of office technology—and of this Bill—is that more and more is going to have to be got into space which may conceivably be adequate at the moment. The office owner will be obliged perhaps to provide rather better conditions for the storage of coats and clothing. More machinery will be coming into offices—and I am not thinking just in terms of computers, which will need their own set-up and which will be delicately nurtured and looked after. It is just that there will be more equipment coming in.
A great deal of convenience and comfort can be brought to office workers by providing them with modern office furniture. There is, unfortunately, any amount of old and unsuitable office furniture around, and often it is possible to reorganise an office and make it satisfactory merely by throwing out the old furniture and putting in modern furniture which does not take up too much room. The same would apply to filing equipment. I do not wish to go into controversial questions—the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I am sure has studied rack filing versus filing cabinets—but new devices will be evolved to provide extra space. The fact remains, however, that unless we put some provision of the kind I am seeking to move into the Bill, the particular requirements about 40 square feet will be nullified. It is not easy to solve this problem, but I believe it can be done.
Broadly, I have said that 40 square feet in a large office is enough for a single office worker with a desk and a chair. There may even be room for a filing cabinet, and approximately 15 to 20 square feet can therefore be taken up in this way. I have had measurements made, and I reckon the figure is around 15 square feet. It seems simple for the Government to have power to make regulations that the 40 square feet rule should apply to clear floor space except for certain specified exceptions in relation to the kind of furniture and equipment and the amount of floor space it takes up.
I realise that in the debates in another place, and upstairs, in discussions, people have said you cannot have inspectors
512
crawling around the floor. Things do not work like that. Most people who, as business men or as employers, are concerned with administering Acts of Parliament, are not seeking to break the law. Providing they are reasonably aware of what the provisions of the law are, they will try to carry them out; and a visit from an inspector who says: "Look, you are a bit in trouble in this way" usually means that it is put right sooner or later. Sometimes it may take a little while.
If my particular Amendment is not satisfactory as it stands, I think the intentions are clear enough and I believe most noble Lords and, I should hope, the Government would agree that the purpose behind it is a sound one. If the point is not satisfactorily defined in this particular Amendment, I shall be quite willing not to press it, providing one can be certain that the Government will look at it and will try to provide a form of words that will make quite clear what is clear, I think, to the ordinary layman. This is an important matter and one which concerns those of us who have been interested in this particular field for a long while. It is a matter which sensible employers have no difficulty in applying. They are not concerned with the precise legal provisions. They work to the simple rule—40 square feet—and if they have put in too much office furniture, then they will provide some more room. If we are not to defeat the purposes of this particular clause, some Amendment of this kind is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shackleton.)
6.38 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: I appreciate the intention of this Amendment, which is designed to ensure that the minimum space of 40 square feet should not be reduced by fixtures or machinery. The 40 square feet area in the Bill does, of course, pre-suppose a certain amount of furniture. I think the noble Lord has already accepted that.
LORD SHACKLETON: So does the Amendment.
LORD DENHAM: I should like first to draw the noble Lord's attention to the corresponding provision in the Factories

513
Act. Section 2 of that Act does not provide for the deduction of space occupied by machinery or fixtures from the standard allowed for each employee; and, in general, there are even more bulky machinery and fittings in factories than there would be in shops and offices. I do not believe that it would be a practical proposition to provide for it under this Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt? The noble Lord realises that the spacing of machinery in factories is a totally different thing and operates under quite different arrangements, suggestions and pressures. The two are not comparable.
LORD DENHAM: That may be, but they are comparable in that the Factories Act has a similar clause allowing 400 cubic feet per employee. We feel that it would be unreasonable to ask inspectors to spend hours on tasks which would take up time altogether disproportionate to all benefit. We go so far as to say that the imposition on inspectors of this task of measuring furniture would hinder effective administration. Furthermore, it has not been found necessary in factories, where there is so much more machinery.
In addition, this Amendment would place on the Minister the virtually impossible task of specifying which kinds of furniture should be taken into consideration and which should not. The noble Lord said that most businessmen comply with the law when they know what the law is. To take what I am sure would be an isolated instance, if an employer put furniture and machinery in a workroom to an unreasonable extent, the inspector would draw his attention to the provisions of subsection (1), which requires that no room shall be overcrowded so as to cause risk of injury to the persons working in it. For these reasons, I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I must confess that I had the reply I expected. I do not think that the Government and the noble Lord really know what inspectors do. This is a wholly imaginary view, that they would have to spend hours measuring and crawling around. I have dealt with inspectors, and they
514
operate on a much more sensible and rational basis. They are sensible and reasonable men, and I see not the slightest difficulty in imposing this requirement, though I admit that the actual wording may not be satisfactory. The noble Lord said that we were imposing too hard a responsibility on the Government to define kinds of furniture. I am doing nothing of the sort. This Amendment is worded in broad terms, using the word "classes", which could be defined as office furniture or machinery up to an area of so much. It may be that this is the weak part of the Amendment, but I do not think that it is enough to fall back on the first subsection of the clause. It is much harder to establish the risk of injury to health. That is a more subtle danger than that with which we are seeking to deal.
I think that the Government might try, between now and Report stage, to face up to this problem to see what can be done. Perhaps the inspectors could be asked whether they think this would be possible. I am certain that it would be possible, and this is one field where I think I speak with some direct knowledge. The spacing of machinery in a factory is a subject by itself, and there are all sorts of different factors operating. It is a subject of negotiation with the trade unions, and of study by production people; but, excluding firms like I.C.I., there is not the same sort of study on the production side of office work. That is why some of these measures are necessary and I urge the Government to give some assurance that they will consider the possibility of finding a suitable Amendment before Report stage, if they do not like this one.
LORD CARRINGTON: I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's Amendment, but, in spite of what he has said, I do not think that it will do. He is asking the Minister to exempt "machinery, fixtures, furniture or fittings of a class or classes" and I think that this would be an enormous task to put on any Minister. Equally, these exemptions having been made, it would be necessary for somebody to inspect these premises. Surely that would take a little time. After all, that is what inspectors are for—to inspect.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think that the noble Lord knows what an

515
inspector is for in the administration of a measure of this sort. Having arrived at a satisfactory definition of what is permissible, inspectors continue their ordinary activities. If an inspector finds that somebody is seriously infringing the provisions (I do not mean individual exemptions for every office, but the broad exemptions within which the Bill will be administered) that is a technical problem. These inspectors are dealing with these matters continously, and they have arrived at satisfactory working rules. Sometimes the ruling is unsatisfactory or obscure, and if an inspector is asked he usually says that he is not quite sure what it means. But this is done in a sensible way.
LORD CARRINGTON: None the less, I should think that, if we make exemptions of the kind the noble Lord has in mind, the inspectors will have to keep their eyes open to see whether these exemptions are allowed or not. The amount of work which the noble Lord is asking the Minister to do is really excessive for what will be gained from it. We have already looked at this point. As I said when I started, I think that the noble Lord has a point in cases where a large block of furniture obviously cuts down the space in a room and the health of the people working there would perhaps be affected. It would be possible for the inspector to give advice about this sort of thing, and if people did not take the advice it would be necessary for him to see whether the regulations were being carried out. I will look again to see if there is a form of words that we could use, but I should not like the noble Lord to have too high hopes on the matter. We have looked at it a great many times.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: It seems to me that the main difficulty lies in the possibility that office furniture, filing cabinets and racks may, in effect, bring in the walls of a room and make the room smaller. The Amendment as put down is clearly not satisfactory, because it is not the floor area covered, but the furniture, that matters. One can find many conference rooms and boardrooms which, under this Amendment, would be against the law, because when people are sitting round the table this would remove the area of the table from the space of
516
the room. I believe that this type of circumstance will rarely arise; and, as the noble Lord said, I should have thought that this could be dealt with under the general statement at the beginning of the Bill. I believe that it would be extremely difficult to draft any regulations which would enable one to govern the extent to which one could reduce the 40 square feet. I think that it is accepted that all reasonable firms and decent employers will make such allowances as they believe are necessary. But how it would be possible to translate this into regulations, I find it difficult to understand.
LORD AMPTHILL: I have been laying out factories and offices for something like 25 years, and the first thing I would stress is that laying out an office is an absolutely different process from laying out a factory. There is no comparison between the two. In many cases, filing cabinets and the like turn a very nice office into a horrible one. I do not think that the noble Lord's proposed Amendment would solve the difficulty, though I agree with practically everything he said. If a bad employer fills up an office with filing cabinets and all sorts of furniture, so that it will hinder work, when an inspector goes in, he will say to the employer that the office does not conform to the Act. The employer will say, "Yes, it does", and the inspector will say, "Prove it". The inspector will not call round with a tape-measure.
LORD SILKIN: I feel that the noble Lord appreciates that there is justification for this Amendment, and he has promised to look into it. If he would only delete the final caution and say that he will look into the matter on its merits, I think that would satisfy my noble friends. Of course, we understand that by promising to look into it he is not giving an undertaking that he will accept this Amendment or a similar one. But if he would only say that he will look into it on its merits—that he thinks there may be something in it, and, while it may be difficult to draft, he will do his best to find some suitable wording—then I think we should be satisfied.
LORD SHEPHERD: There is one point, before the noble Lord replies, which I think is important. There has been considerable development in the

517
type of equipment being brought into offices—various types of computers, Telex machines, and the like—and, therefore, we should have in mind not just that the provisions of the Bill should be sufficient for to-day. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be in force for a number of years, and during that period I can well see the continual growth of machinery and equipment to perform certain functions. Therefore, I would ask the Government to have in mind, not just the position to-day, but what it may be in ten years' time. If they do that, it may well be that they will decide that what is sufficient to-day may not be sufficient in five or ten years' time. I would ask them to give that assurance to my noble friend Lord Shackleton on this matter.
LORD CARRINGTON: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Of course, I will give the assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. All I was seeking to do in qualifying the assurance was to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this matter has been gone into a good many times, and that the Parliamentary draftsmen and those officials in the Ministry of Labour who have looked into it think it is a difficult problem to devise a form of words which would be suitable. But of course I will look at it on its merits and see whether we can find words to satisfy the Opposition.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying this. Over and over again, on Bills which have passed through the other place, Amendments have been put down on the same lines as those which have been discussed in the other place, and quite frequently we have had this sort of statement, that it has been fully considered and nothing can be done; but under pressure there has been an assurance that it would be looked at again, and in the end we have found that there is a way of getting over the difficulty. That is what this House is for. If the other place had said the last word, there would be no point in coming here and arguing it all again. I hope the noble Lord and his colleagues will not be obsessed by the difficulties, but will really try to find a solution to something for which they
518
themselves recognise a solution ought to be found.
LORD CARRINGTON: Let us hope that this will be one of those happy occasions such as the noble Lord has recollected.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful for the assurance, and I do not read into it any more than the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, means. Equally, I appreciate that he will look into this question. There are, of course, other ways in which this could be done, possibly by a strengthening of subsection (1) of the clause, laying a duty on inspectors to have general regard to certain considerations. I fully appreciate the difficulties. I am grateful for the consideration that has been given to the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.55 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendment No. 74 with Amendment No. 25, because this is really a paving Amendment for No. 74. As will be seen by reference to the Bill, Clause 5 (3) (b) states that the general provisions shall not apply to a room to which members of the public are invited to resort. If, in fact, the employers require the public to attend within a given space in which employees are employed, that ought to be taken into account, and the room ought to be sufficiently large to put the staff at no great discomfort because of the access of the public to the room. I agree that much depends on the frequency with which the public come into the room, and the length of time they tend to stay, and, equally, on the numbers that at any given time might be in the room. But I do not think the fact that the public are invited, or that it is the purpose of the business that the public should come in, ought in any way to exempt the employers from the provisions.
I can think of two examples. First of all, there is the betting shop. Clients of a betting shop come in and those behind the counter are still required to carry on their work in one way or another. The general arrangements for that ought to comply with the size of

519
the room allowed, and there should be no exclusions. To take a totally different case where the public come in, I would refer to the business of a travel agency. In a travel agency the visitors are perhaps not as frequent as the agency would like, but in the summer months, or in the early spring months when they are getting ready for the summer trade, the attendance in the counter office is much greater than in the winter months. There, again, much depends upon the type of travel agency as to when its peak periods are. But if you have a travel agency, and counter clerks are required to be the other side of the counter informing the public of the wares of the travel agency, answering queries, giving information, making bookings and all the rest, that staff ought not to be forced to work in discomfort due to the heat of the room through the number of persons in it, or to the fact they cannot move around the room. Therefore, we suggest that the withdrawal of this paragraph, together with the acceptance of Amendment No. 74, would be a big improvement for that type of office, ranging, as I have said, from a betting shop to a travel agency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out the said paragraph. —(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD CARRINGTON: Before the Bill was presented to Parliament, the Government did consider carefully whether the space formula in subsection (2) of Clause 5 should be applied to rooms to which members of the public have access; that is to say, in effect, shops. That was discussed, too, in another place, and an Amendment much the same as that moved by the noble Lord was moved there; and although I am sure it was not moved so persuasively or succinctly, I do not think it would be true to say that the noble Lord has produced any new arguments this evening to justify the Amendment.
I think there is a difficulty in this, although I appreciate what the noble Lord is trying to do. I think the difficulty is in defining "working space" for the enormous variety of shops which we are dealing with. For example, in a good many shops the assistant does not always stand behind the counter, but walks about on the outside, so to speak, so that she or he might help the customer in the
520
central area. If one applied to shops the ordinary space formula which we have in the Bill as it stands, one would have to pay regard to the whole room which comprises the shop and not simply the area behind the counters if there are any. I will deal with the presence of members of the public in a moment. Taking employees only and the whole room, I should have thought that, generally speaking, the ratio of space to employees in rooms which are frequented by the public is usually far in excess of the minimum standards in subsection (2).
LORD SHEPHERD: Is the noble Lord speaking of shops?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes. One has to bear in mind that the chief purpose of this clause is to assist in the maintenance of a healthy atmosphere. In many shops, and particularly at certain times of the day or year, customers greatly outnumber the employees—for example, the January sales in the London shops. It will be, I think, unrealistic to apply a formula to employees alone, and obviously utterly impossible to place any limitation on the entry of the public, because that is what shops are for—for people to come in and buy. For all these reasons, we do not believe that it is possible to apply the formula under this Bill to the sort of premises which the noble Lord has in mind. In point of fact, we should be asking inspectors to spend a good deal of time to what might be of very little purpose.
The second Amendment No. 74, about which the noble Lord has also spoken, depends on the acceptance of this one, as he has said. Although I was not entirely sure, I thought from some of his remarks, or, at any rate, when I first read the Amendment, that he was envisaging that the Minister would exercise his powers of exemption in relation to individual rooms or shops. The provision in the Bill is to exempt classes of shops from this kind of thing. I am inclined to think it would be difficult to do what the noble Lord suggests in relation to classes, because they vary so much. But, if I might, I should like to have a look at what he said about classes of shops, although I do not think it is possible to relate the first Amendment to it.
LORD SHEPHERD: In our Amendment No. 74 I thought we con-

521
ceded the point of the difficulty in relation to retail shops, although the Gowers Committee were fairly strong in recommending that the minimum space for the staff should apply not only to offices but also to shops. We on this side, when we considered this matter, appreciated the problem which arose in dealing with shops. Therefore, when we put down these two Amendments, what we wanted to do (and I am sure this was the intention of my noble friend) was to say that, while we agree that shops should be excluded from the Bill, it would be quite wrong to exempt all types of offices from the provisions of the Bill merely because the public come into the building or room. I do not know whether the noble Lord goes to a travel agency—it is very useful sometimes. Travel agencies always like to put on a nice display; it must be attractive and modern. I would suggest to the noble Lord that he might go behind the partition, where he will see utter congestion. What we desire is that employers shall not congest into a room a large number of staff merely because the fact that the public have access to it gives them a loophole to break the provisions. As I see it, that is the case, and if the Minister would look at this matter once again I am sure that we should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am not at all sure that the point the noble Lord has made is not already covered in the Bill. I do not think the Amendment, as it stands, will do, because Amendment No. 74 says, "the Minister may exempt any room". I think it would have to be, "any class of room", or something of that kind. There may be a difficulty of definition about this. I am not a lawyer, but I will certainly have a look at it.
LORD LINDGREN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration given, and in view of the statement I ask leave for the Amendment to withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.6 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (3) (c), to leave out "three" and insert "two". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord
522
Latham, I beg to move this Amendment. The Bill in its original state in another place provided for five years before the coming into force of this minimum quotient in regard to overcrowding. The Government than undertook—and they have now brought it forward in this Bill—that it should be three years instead of five. As the Minister said in another place on, I think, the Report stage, the Bill will not come into force for a year after its passing. In other words, we are giving a period of four years for offices to come to the required minimum standard.
When the Gowers Committee sat and reported in March, 1959, conditions in our offices were very severe. There were extreme difficulties because of the shortage of raw materials and the like, and of labour in particular, to carry out any major improvement in office standards. It was not so many months ago that the Government said that because conditions had altered a Bill of this nature was not necessary. However, they have changed their minds. It is true that in some areas there may be building strain, but in others, particularly those where there is high unemployment, there are labour forces available and certainly materials which could be diverted and devoted fairly quickly to the improvement of office and shop conditions. If they are given a period of three years' grace, I can well believe employers may say, "I have three or four years"—because of the year in which the Bill is coming into force— "to deal with the matter". It means that whilst they could improve their conditions, they may make use of the period of grace.
I believe that this period of grace should be reduced to two years, which would mean that from the time of the passing of the Bill there would be a period of three years' grace. This would shorten the time which employers would have to bring their premises into proper condition for the benefit of their workers. If, because in local areas there is a grave shortage of building workers or materials, employers, even with sincere efforts, are unable to improve their conditions, obviously the Minister would have the power to grant an exemption for a limited period in which the employer could bring forward his property. When we are dealing with this vast problem—and the

523
noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has continually stressed that it is a formidable problem—the sooner we start, the better.
I believe that if employers are given what is in fact four years in which to carry this forward, many of them will leave it and leave it, and in four years' time you will face the necessity of granting exemptions because so many people have left it so late and the resources then available are not sufficient to tackle the task. I ask the Government to consider the point of making the period of grace shorter. If there are genuine reasons why conditions cannot be improved—because it is beyond the ability of the employer—then let the Minister use those powers of exemption, but only in the cases where the employer has obviously shown that, though it was his wish to improve the conditions, he was unable, because of local circumstances to do so. I hope that the Government will see that this is a matter which should receive as prompt attention as possible. It is a formidable task, and the sooner the Government start on the way the better. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord in his Amendment wants to reduce the period of grace from three years to two years, which, as he says, will probably mean a reduction from four to three because it is likely that this Clause will not come into operation until a year after the Royal Assent to the Act. The noble Lord mentioned that in another place, after very careful consideration by my right honourable friend of what was argued by the noble Lord's honourable friends, the period of grace was reduced from five years to three years. I ought to point out again here that five, in practice, would have meant six, so that when the Government originally wrote five years into the Bill—bearing in mind, of course, as the noble Lord does, that the Gowers Committee always envisaged that there would be a period of grace—the Government did acknowledge that in practice the period of grace would be six years and not five. So we have gone quite a long way already to meet the views of those people who argue that the original period of grace was too long. I
524
think that noble Lords know that it may well in some cases, take time to make extensions or alterations to existing premises, but I do not think any noble Lord, or, indeed, anybody, would seriously suggest that to-day the building industry is under-loaded.
LORD SHEPHERD: In some areas it is the case.
LORD NEWTON: I am afraid that I cannot accept that. I do not believe that the building industry is under-loaded. That is one reason why I do not think that a further reduction of the period of grace would he reasonable.
The noble Lord mentioned the existence of the exemption powers which are written into the Bill and suggested that they should be used. I would suggest to him that if the period of grace is reduced to two years that might cause considerable uncertainty among occupiers as to whether, if at the end of that period they have not been able to find the new premises necessary, they would or would not be granted an exemption. Realising this beforehand, it seems to me that the realisation might be reflected in their labour requirements and, apart from anything else, might cause unprofitable administrative work in reviewing and issuing exemption orders and certificates. Those seem to be the difficulties about going further.
I would also remind the Committee that the space standard written into the Bill will apply immediately the Bill is brought into force in respect of premises occupied after the passing of the Bill. They will apply immediately to new premises. Another point, which I feel is quite an important one, is that subsection (1) of Clause 5 will also be made effective as soon as the Bill comes into force, so that gross overcrowding, leading to a risk of injury to health, will be an offence without any delay at all. That is quite a good safeguard. For these reasons I invite your Lordships to agree with me that we have not done too badly in going as far as we have gone already, and that it would be right not to go any further.
LORD SHACKLETON: Does the noble Lord really think that seventeen years from the time the recommendations were made is a reasonable period of grace?
LORD NEWTON: That is not the point. The period of grace is from the moment when occupiers realise that action is going to be obligatory upon them. I have too much respect for the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to think that he would take any other view.
LORD LATHAM: There must be no "Great Expectations".
LORD SHEPHERD: I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Newton, always looks a happy man. He is easily satisfied. We are not very happy with the statement that has just been made by the Minister. We honestly do feel that, as in many cases when one writes in what should be the minimum, in fact it becomes the maximum. I cannot but feel that this period of three years' grace will be used to delay all forms of improvement, and at the end of the period of grace the Minister will be faced with the necessity of giving exemptions. Of course, he is not going to close down an office or a shop because they have not improved the conditions during the period of grace. I do not believe it: he will have no option but to allow a further period of grace, and then there will be a great rush to make use of the facilities which are available.
I honestly believe that the Government are making a serious error in not trying to bring forward the time in which these offices must be brought up to the conditions which the Government desire. So I will look again at this matter and consult further with my colleagues. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with another walk through the Division Lobby at this stage of the evening, but we may well have to do so at a later stage. However, we shall have a discussion on it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.18 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding subsection, subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall apply from their commencement to any premises used for the first time as offices or shops after the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I desire to move Amendment No. 27. Without in any way prejudicing the veiled threat of my noble friend Lord Shepherd in regard to what
526
might happen at a later stage relating to the period of grace, may I say that some case can be made out by the Government there for a period of grace? After all, this is a very heavy requirement which is being placed upon a large group of people, who in fact have been hoping against hope for years, because they have never provided it when they ought to have done, that they would never have to provide it. That can be said, and there can be this case made for a period of grace for existing premises, existing employers, under existing conditions, but the same thing cannot be said for an organisation setting up a new office after the passing of the Bill.
There has been enough discussion over the past three or four years with, if I might use a phrase, the Dick Marsh Bill, the subsequent Committee stage, the statements of Ministers, the discussion of this Bill in another place, and discussions in this House. There is every indication to those who are going to undertake new shops or office premises that they should comply with the conditions set out in this Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is that where, in fact, new organisations are setting up, whether it is in new premises or in special buildings—in which case, generally speaking, the by-laws of the local authority would, I am pretty certain, cover the requirements of the Bill; more often than not old buildings are converted to offices, some old shops are converted, and the rest—after the passing of this Bill I think they ought to comply with its conditions so that the period of grace should not in any way be attached to premises when it ought to be attached to the user; and if it is a new user, then the new conditions should apply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD DENHAM: I hope that I can convince the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government have already made provision for this in the Bill. When subsection (2) is brought into force it will apply immediately to rooms in premises which are occupied for the first time as offices, shops or railway premises. An exception to this rule is made by subsection (3) (c) in the case of premises used already as offices, shops or railway premises at the passing of

527
the Act: occupiers of these premises will be given a period of delay of three years from the coming into operation of subsection (1) before they have to comply with subsection (2). In view of this explanation, which I hope the noble Lord understands, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord read more slowly?
LORD DENHAM: Perhaps I could put it quite simply by saying that the noble Lord is seeking to do in reverse what Her Majesty's Government have already done. In subsection (3) (c) Her Majesty's Government exempt existing shops from subsection (2) for a period of three years: they do not exempt new shops. The noble Lord is trying to slop the exemption of new shops, whereas new shops are not, in fact, exempted.
LORD LINDGREN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, and if what he says is correct it means that subsection (2) covers new premises. I will be quite honest; as I read subsection (3) (c), if a building was already being used as a shop and office, or as an office, and the organisation using it changed, if it became vacant and was re-let, the period of three years would apply. If that is not so, and if all new users are covered by subsection (2), I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, may I say that though he has a good deal more Parliamentary experience than I have, I have spent a lot of time looking at this clause, in view of the remarks made to me on Second Reading, because I was making this very point. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that it is already provided. I have consulted a number of people who have been practised in reading Parliamentary language, and I said to them, "This is what I have been told. Is it there?". They said, "I do not think so; I do not see where it is". If some of my Parliamentary friends do not understand it, I wonder whether the local authority is going to understand it, I here is nothing between us in principle. May I ask the noble Lord whether he will consider, between now and the next
528
stage, going to his Parliamentary draftsman, through his Minister, to see whether we might have a clause which is clearly understood, even by a layman—because it is laymen who will have to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I do not believe that any noble Lord, reading the clause, would come to the conclusion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to consider whether the clause be redrafted so that laymen can understand it.
LORD CARRINGTON: I should like very much to fall in with the noble Lord's suggestion, but I do not think I can. I think the Parliamentary draftsman has come to the conclusion this is the right way to draft this particular clause. What he has done is to make subsection (2) apply to all new premises and to exempt in subsection (3) (c) premises already existing. I must be honest; it took me a little time to understand it. But I am sure that this is fairly clear; and if it has not been clear before, surely the debate we are having at the present time will make it clear to everybody.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would ask the noble Lord to consider this matter again. He says he did not understand it, but that he now understands it. But he has had the benefit of a whole host of civil servants who have done nothing but read and understand this Bill. The average layman who has to understand the Bill will not have those facilities. I feel the noble Lord should try to make this clause more easily understood by the general public.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to tell the noble Lord that I think I do understand it.
LORD LINDGREN: With that happy combination of the noble Lord and my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
House resumed.

FACTORY LANE, WARRINGTON (LEVEL CROSSING) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.