OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL

HL Deb 04 April 1963 vol 248 cc686-791

4.22 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be again in 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 AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 6:

Temperature

6.—

(2) Where a substantial proportion of the work done in a room to which the foregoing subsection applies does not involve severe physical effort, a temperature of less than 16 degrees Centigrade (which is equivalent to 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit) shall not be deemed, after the first hour, to be a reasonable temperature while work is going on.

(3) The foregoing subsections shall not apply—

1. (a) to a room which comprises, or is comprised in or constitutes, office premises, being a room to which members of the public are invited to resort, and in which the maintenance of a reasonable temperature is not reasonably practicable; or
2. (b) to a room which comprises, or is comprised in or constitutes, shop or railway premises, being a room in which the maintenance of a reasonable temperature is not reasonably practicable or would cause deterioration of goods;

but there shall be provided for persons who are employed to work in a room to which, but for the foregoing provisions of this subsection, subsection (1) of this section would apply, conveniently accessible and effective means of enabling them to warm themselves.

LORD SHACKLETON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "severe physical effort" and insert "strenuous physical activity". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a comparatively minor one, designed to help clarify the intentions of the Government. It has struck some of us that the words "severe physical effort" are really rather strong, and I am not sure in what severe physical effort one would be indulging in an office or shop. Oviously, if there was a boxing match going on, you could say that that was a severe physical effort. But this seems to be mainly concerned with people who will be moving things, and carrying goods backwards and forwards, which will not necessarily involve what I would call severe physical effort. That point is: what effort is necessary to raise an individual's temperature by his own exertions without having the room permanently at a temperature of 60 degrees? I should have thought that "strenuous physical activities" would be enough to achieve this purpose. This is a point that has occurred to a number of people and we have tried to find suitable words. Other words suggested were, "substantial physical effort". But we have "substantial" two lines above, and I rather think the form of words we have suggested would be appropriate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 27, leave out ("severe physical effort") and insert ("strenuous physical activity").—(Lord Shackleton.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON)

When I saw this Amendment on the Marshalled List I scratched my head rather hard as to what the noble Lord was getting at, and I concluded that he was probably going to argue that the words we have put into the Bill, "severe physical effort", are too weak; but, in fact, he is arguing the other way round, and he thinks they are too strong. However, for practical purposes I do not think there is any difference between the two phrases. I have had recourse to the Oxford Dictionary in the Library, and on looking up the word "severe" I find it says: Of a labour or exercise, hard to sustain or endure; arduous". I then looked up "arduous", and it says: Of an activity, strenuous". So we have it that "severe" equals "arduous", equals "strenuous"; and "strenuous" is the word that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, appears to prefer to "severe". I then looked up "effort", and it says: The strenuous exertion of power, physical or mental". I next looked up "activity", and it says: The state of being active; exertion of energy". So it seems to me that the words already in the Bill, "severe physical effort", mean "severe physical exertion of power"; and the words in the noble Lord's Amendment, "strenuous physical activity", mean "strenuous physical exertion of energy". I would suggest to your Lordships that, for practical purposes, there is really no difference between the two words.

The reason why I invite your Lordships to prefer what is in the Bill is that the words "severe physical effort", are much nearer the words in the Factories Act. The words in the Factories Act are, "serious physical effort"; but I am advised that we ought not to repeat the word "serious" in this Bill, because somebody learned in the law has suggested that the word "serious" can be construed as being the opposite of "frivolous", though apparently it never has been. For that reason, it seems that "severe" is more suitable. I hope the noble Lord will feel that there is really no great difference between us and will be able to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord does not make much use of dictionaries. It is possible by careful use of a dictionary (and this is a practice in which I once indulged on an Arctic expedition) ultimately to find words that come to the opposite meaning of the words you originally looked at. There are subtle differences. If we could take a count, I am sure your Lordships would reckon that "severe" was in fact severer and more strenuous than "strenuous". I do not quarrel about the words "effort" or "activity". I think "activity" is better, but I do not very much mind. It seems to me that the analogy of the Factories Act is where the Government have gone wrong. We are not talking about factories, but about different types of institutions. Obviously, this is not a matter of profound Party political difference, and I would not press it, but I should have said that "strenuous" is really a better word for this purpose.

One does not hear the word "severe" used in this sort of context, and the Government admit that they have put it in only because there was a misunderstanding about the word "serious". I think "severe" is open to the objection that most people who do not go to a dictionary and indulge in this dictionary game would reckon that it is something very arduous indeed; something like working a pneumatic drill or lumbering—that is severe physical effort. I do not think one will find "severe" applicable to an office. I do not want to waste time on this matter, but I suggest that the Government are taking a slightly narrow view.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Lord says that people do not bother to go to dictionaries. I should have thought that this clause in the Bill, like all the other clauses, could conceivably fall to be interpreted by the courts, and presumably they would be concerned with the exact meaning of words. "Severe" in the dictionary I looked up is defined as, A labour or exercise; hard to sustain or endure; arduous". And, as I say, "arduous" is defined as: Of an activity, strenuous.". "Strenuous" is defined as: Of action or effort, vigorous; energetic; persistently and ardently laborious". I should have thought that if there is any difference in nuance between these two adjectives "strenuous" is shown to be slightly the stronger word of the two." As I understand it, the noble Lord was concerned because the word "severe" was too strong. I would suggest to him, on the face of what I have discovered from the dictionary, that he might leave it as it is.

LORD SHACKLETON

I will not press this. I disagree with the noble Lord, but I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.30 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (2), to leave out a temperature of less than 16 degrees Centigrade (which is equivalent to 60.8 … and (a) a temperature of less than 65".

The noble Lord said: In framing my Amendment, I must say straight away that I was not trying to exclude the Centigrade measurement of temperature. The simple fact was that I had forgotten the formula for converting the one into the other. If the noble Lord will accept the principle of the Amendment, I am sure the officers of his Department would provide the necessary formula and include the appropriate figure at a later stage. There is, of course, this to be said for Fahrenheit: that most office or shop thermometers are marked in degrees Fahrenheit rather than in the Centrigrade measurement.

The Gowers Committee gave a great deal of consideration to this matter of temperature. They recognised the difficulty of fixing minimum temperatures for shops. But what can be said about shops in this connection does not apply to offices where, quite clearly, it is possible to fix a temperature for reasonable working conditions in the sort of sedentary work which is normally carried on in offices. Because the Government have included a temperature within the Bill, the question here is purely a matter of whether 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit is the right temperature. I should imagine that the .8 was added on to fit into the Centigrade measurement, and for no other purpose.

When this matter was considered by the Gowers Committee, some of the representatives of clerical workers favoured a uniform standard of 65 degrees as suitable for office workers. I should think that representatives of clerical workers would be the people best fitted to decide what was the right temperature for people who are sitting down, "slamming" on a typewriter, writing, or doing what has to be done in an office. This is a figure which most people to whom I have spoken about this matter thought was about right. In addition to the people to whom I have spoken, some learned bodies have represented what they thought should be the temperature for people who are employed in these sedentary occupations. I understand that the British Institute of Management have suggested 65 to 68 degrees; the Industrial Health Research Board 65 degrees; the National Federation of Professional Workers 62 to 65 degrees; while a recent job of research by a woman research worker indicated that in offices 62 degrees is regarded by women as being much too cold, and that 68 degrees is not the upper limit of temperature which they would like to have.

I suppose that the reason why women have a special point on this arises from the fact that they seem to wear clothes which are just designed to hide the body, but not to hide it to such an extent that they appear bulky in those clothes. I must admit that I thought that about America when I first went there. The temperatures were designed for the ladies so that they could appear slim, even although they were already fat. But women certainly have a point in this, and women do work in offices to a large extent.

We here are sedentary workers. I do not regard myself as engaging in any severe physical activity or indulging in strenuous effort. I understand that the temperature in the Palace of Westminster is about 70 degrees. Yesterday morning, when I was in the Library, I was sitting there in reasonable comfort, not too hot, and I looked at the thermometers and saw that one stood at 66 degrees and another at 68 degrees. It seemed to me to be very comfortable, although I had on the fairly thick clothes which men normally wear. All this it seems to me points to the fact that 60.8 degrees included in this clause is much too low—or, at any rate, five degrees, less the .8, too low. I think the Minister might well include this figure of 65 degrees in the Bill, since clearly it would meet the point put by so many people who have been interested in this, that 65 degrees is just about the right temperature. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 27, leave out from ("effort") to ("degrees") in line 28, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Champion.)

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)

The noble Lord has suggested in his Amendment, and in his speech, that 65 degrees is about the right temperature for sedentary workers. I do not think that on the whole I would quarrel with him about that. As a matter of fact, the temperature of this House is about 66 degrees. Some of us think it rather too warm, but that may well be because the ventilation is not very good. It is usually 66 degrees, unless noble Lords opposite get rather excited and are going to have a Division, when no doubt the temperature rises a few degrees.

LORD CHAMPION

That is internal combustion.

LORD CARRINGTON

Although I would not argue with the noble Lord on these grounds (though individual preferences vary) there are one or two points which I would ask him to consider about this. First of all, 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 16 degrees Centigrade, which is in the Bill, is a legal minimum. This is the minimum temperature and, of course, it does not follow that because it is the minimum temperature the Government regard it as the ideal working temperature, which I readily accept is about 65 degrees for most men and women, though not all. I know that my noble friend Lord Newton says he likes working in a temperature below 60.8 degrees. We have to remember that the failure to observe this statutory minimum will constitute an offence which is punishable by a fine under the provisions of this Bill. I should have thought—and I think your Lordships would agree with me—that all employers will be anxious to make sure they do not commit an offence, and will in fact aim for a higher temperature than 60.8 degrees.

There is another point, though perhaps a subsidiary one. A good many heating plants in this country—one of them in my own home—are incapable of raising the internal temperature more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit above the level of the temperature outside, so that on the coldest days of winter it might be impracticable for many employers to keep a higher temperature than the standard laid down in the Bill. If we oblige every employer to maintain a minimum standard of 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit, that temperature will apply in the coldest room in his premises; and because of the way heating systems tend to work, the temperature in other rooms will certainly be at higher levels. If one sought to achieve a minimum of 65 degrees in the coldest room, I have a feeling that there would be quite a number of other rooms in the premises where it would be a good deal too hot. I think on the whole it would be better to leave the 60.8 degrees as the legal minimum, though acknowledging what the noble Lord opposite has very fairly said: that the temperature to be aimed at in the rooms is round about 65 degrees Fahrenheit.

LORD SHACKLETON

Once again I think the Government have shown that they do not know how inspectors work in this matter. There are already minimum requirements of temperature for factories, and in the very cold weather there will be workrooms and factories—and this has been particularly true lately—where the temperatures will be below the legal minimum. But, because inspectors are reasonable people, they do not immediately start prosecuting: if there is a complaint, they urge the employers or the managers to do something about it. It is precisely because there are a large number of rather old-fashioned bits of heating equipment around that it is necessary to put the figure higher than this minimum. To my mind, it is quite absurd to have a 60—degree minimum for factories and a 65—degree minimum for shops and offices. All the evidence is that 65 is the minimum that is comfortable for anybody except the noble Lord, Lord Newton.

I assure noble Lords that in most offices, where people are trying to behave responsibly, they will aim for a temperature of at least 65 degrees. This argument that temperatures will be very much higher than 65 degrees, and the implication that the people will be uncomfortable if the coldest room is at 65, is not a serious one. Nor is the argument that there will not be more than 5 degrees in it. If it is an old-fashioned building the workers can almost certainly open the window and lower the temperature, and if it is not, if it is air-conditioned, there will in any event be a proper control over the temperatures.

I simply do not understand why the Government do not take this point. If 60 degrees is all right, then for purely sedentary occupations, where there is no real effort at all, 65 is the minimum. Even in a workroom where people may be sewing, or something of that kind, 60 degrees may be all right; but what concerns me is that so often temperatures are allowed to fall below the legal minimum, and shops inspectors are not going to move in very cold weather if the temperature is only three or four degrees below the permitted minimum. The result will be that it will really be too cold for people, and as in the recent cold spell, people will be sitting in offices in their overcoats. Nobody is seeking to press too hard on this matter, but one wants to arrive at what is the right minimum, and there is no doubt that 65 is the right minimum. I urge the Government—although I know they resisted it in another place—to accept 65 degrees. They have given no valid reason against it, except the noble Lord's own heating plant at home. I urge the Government to try to meet us on this.

LORD BURDEN

I want to say only two or three words in support of this Amendment. First, I understand that the workers themselves in the shops, through their union, are strongly in favour of the suggested figure of 65; and surely the point of view of those who have to work under those conditions ought to be considered by the Government. Secondly, the shop inspectors, through their union, the Association of Public Health Inspectors, who have a wide knowledge of office conditions, feel that 65 should be the figure in the Bill. Frankly, I wish the Government were not adamant and would give way on this point. It means a good deal to the decent working conditions in many shops throughout the country.

LORD SHEPHERD

Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him if he can inform the Committee whether the Government have had consultations with the unions representing the workers; and, if so, in this matter what were their recommendations? If the unions' recommendation was 65 degrees that would again substantiate the view that was expressed, I think, in all sections of the House—for I remember that three or four speakers opposite said at Second Reading that in their opinion 65 degrees was the right temperature. I feel that the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about 60 being the minimum that could reasonably be enforced, was not a very valid one. Often these minima become the maxima; and I am quite sure that the Committee should insist, if there is sufficient weight of evidence that the noble Lord can give us from the unions, on this 65 degrees.

4.45 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN

I wish to say only one or two words. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think, made his strongest point on the fact that the figure in the Bill constitutes a minimum, and that anyone allowing the temperature in his office to fall below that minimum immediately commits an offence; that if we made the minimum 65 the offence would be in falling below 65. That is technically true. But, again, if I might follow up what my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, it seems that the noble Lord has not been well informed as to how these regulations or Acts of Parliament work in relation to either factories or workshops, or in shops and offices where they already exist.

When there is to be a prosecution, there has, of course, to be proof, and the statement of an employee that the temperature fell below 60.8 degrees is not evidence likely to be accepted in a magistrates' court. What happens is that where a temperature is persistently below the permitted figure, a group of employees complain to the factory inspector; or, as it will be under this Bill, to the inspector, who then starts to investigate. He sees what is happening; makes a spot check, and tests the heating system. Even then, there is not a prosecution straight away. There is consultation with the management, who promise to be better in future; and it is only where there is persistent avoidance of the regulations or an Act of Parliament that a factory inspector will prosecute. I have no reason to believe that an inspector under this Bill would be any less considerate in regard to its operation than inspectors have been in the past. It is only where there is persistent and continual ignoring of the Acts of Parliament, after warnings and pleadings by the inspectors and the employees, that any action is taken. Only a small number of cases reach the courts. For these reasons, I hope, having been an office worker myself, and knowing how uncomfortable it is to sit down and try to ponder over reports and work out figures when you are cold, that the Minister will concede this Amendment.

LORD CARRINGTON

I am afraid that I cannot do so, for the reasons I have already given in my first remarks to your Lordships. On the question of these inspectors, the fact remains that an inspector is there to see that the law is enforced, and I do not think it is right or proper to insert into a Bill a provision which is not intended to be enforced all the time. I think it very much better that we should put in a lower minimum and expect people to keep their offices at a higher tempera- ture. I quite agree with noble Lords opposite that 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit is too little. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asks me whether any unions or organisations were consulted. I can tell him that 130 organisations, at one time or another, were consulted. Some of them said 65 degrees, some said more, and some said less.

LORD SHACKLETON

Who said less?

LORD CARRINGTON

I could not possibly tell the noble Lord.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Lord said "organisations". He does not mean unions. I asked about unions.

LORD CARRINGTON

Unions were consulted, as well as other organisations. I think on these occasions it must be for the Government to listen to what people have said and make up their minds, and in this particular case we think it reasonable that the legal minimum should be 60.8° Fahrenheit.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord is not being fair to the factory inspectorate. I hope in the course of our debates on this Bill noble Lords will succeed in educating members of the Government on how this operates. The 60° is continually broken now in factories. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and others with experience are aware that these people do their best. We are not putting in 65° knowing that it is a provision going, to be broken, any more than it is with 60°. If the First Lord did not understand the argument of my noble friend Lord Lindgren, I do not know how they think this provision is likely to operate. Inspectors have to be reasonable, and in all my dealings with them I have found that they are reasonable. The noble Lord concedes that 65° is right. Why not put it in the Bill?

LORD AMPTHILL

I would say, on the point that under extreme outside weather conditions not even this minimum will be reached, that that is possible. Modern plant in this country, I think, is designed on an average minimum temperature outside of 28° Fahrenheit. If the outside temperature happened to be 20° Fahrenheit, you might not be able to preserve your minimum. I am sure the inspector would be understanding in a case like that, and the people in the room or rooms would understand, because in fact under those weather conditions something less than 60° would feel jolly cosy. I have thought a good deal about this, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his remarks. This is only a legal minimum, and this Bill covers a wide variety of premises, and a wide variety of conditions will be required for comfort. I have been in the air conditioning business myself and I can tell your Lordships it is quite extraordinary how different people's ideas of comfort are. If I were setting up an office now for purely sedentary people, I should not have less than 67° or 68°, because otherwise I do not think the typists would do the work. On the other hand, this provision covers other premises where workers might want a lower temperature. I thought at first that what was in the Bill was nonsense; but, having thought it over, I think it is right to leave it like this.

LORD CHAMPION

I thought the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, was coming very much to my rescue when he started. Certainly he was so far as office workers are concerned. But what I think he

really failed to do in the remainder of his speech was to recognise that all these people are people who do not normally indulge in any severe physical effort. They are certainly sedentary workers. What is suitable for a person working in an office is certainly suitable for shops and such other premises.

I must admit I was disappointed with the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I thought this might be the first occasion on this Bill when he would get up and say, "Here we are accepting a useful Amendment proposed by the Opposition". I feel with him that good employers will not stick to this 60° minimum. But this Bill, as I understand it, is not aimed at the good employer. They already have higher standards than those included in the Bill in practically every one of its provisions. This Bill is aimed at people who are not such good employers, who do not put themselves out in order to make their employees comfortable. For those reasons I cannot withdraw this Amendment.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Hughes, L.	Shackleton, L.
Archibald, L.	Kenswood, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Latham, L.	Silkin, L.
Champion, L.	Lindgren, L.	Somers, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L.	Listowel, E.	Strang, L.
Faringdon, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Summerskill, B.
Greenhill, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.	Terrington, L.
Henderson, L.	Rea, L.	Williams, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Ferrers, E.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Allerton, L.	Ferrier, L.	Merrivale, L.
Ampthill, L.	Fraser of North Cape, L.	Milverton, L.
Auckland, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.	Gosford, E.	Newall, L.
Carrington, L.	Grenfell, L.	Newton, L.
Chesham, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Clwyd, L.	Hawke, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Horsbrugh, B.	Strathcarron, L.
Conesford, L.	Ironside, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Craigton, L.	Lambert, V.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Denham, L.	Lothian, M.	Swinton, E.
Derwent, L.	MacAndrew, L.	Teynham, L.
Devonshire, D.	Mancroft, L.	Todd, L.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Mansfield, E.	Windlesham,

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.3 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (2): and (b) a temperature of more than 75 degrees Fahrenheit shall not be deemed to be a reasonable temperature while work is going on".

The noble Lord said: It is often said that bodies generate heat. I think there is some advantage to a Division when so many strangers come into the House to raise the temperature a little. I personally find 66 degrees quite chilling.

LORD HAWKE

The noble Lord has spent most of his time in Malaya and therefore anything under 80 degrees would appear to be cold.

LORD SHEPHERD

In actual fact, I can assure the noble Lord that it is quite the opposite. If you have got sun in your body it is amazing how you can withstand the cold. This Amendment is an attempt to bring into the Bill a maximum temperature. The Gowers Report indicates that the British Medical Association were of the opinion, and decided, that any temperature in excess of 80 degrees for four hours was seriously detrimental to a person's health. If they put that as the figure for four hours, I should have thought that the temperature should be even further reduced for a worker working eight or nine hours. I would not stand on the question whether it should be 75, 76 or otherwise, but I feel that the Government should give some thought as to whether a maximum temperature for offices and shops should, so far as is practicable, be written into the Bill. A number of offices in factories are sited close to boilers and the conditions for the workers are often quite intolerable.

I should have thought that, when dealing with temperatures for offices, to provide decent standards for workers, we should consider the question of a maximum temperature. I am putting this forward rather as a probing operation, to see whether the Government are willing to concede the point that in this Bill there should be a maximum temperature in regard to offices and shops. Then, if we had the principle established, we could have some discussion on a friendly basis, such as we had a few minutes ago, on what that temperature should be. There may be a case for it to be 75, or perhaps a little higher. But I think the general principle is that we should write into this Bill a maximum temperature for offices and shops. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

This desideratum would be much more difficult to achieve than that mentioned in the last Amendment. It is true that on all too few occasions our summer temperature exceeds 75 degrees, but when it does any building having a temperature more than that, brought about by merely conforming to the outside temperature, cannot unless it is air-conditioned have that temperature reduced. While it is reasonably easy to warm any premises by central heating or by electric radiators, it would be unreasonable to expect every small office throughout the country to instal air-conditioning, which would thereby reduce the temperature in hot weather to below 75 degrees.

LORD AMPTHILL

I agree that a temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit is not one in which it is reasonable to work. But to set it up as a maximum temperature under this Bill dealing with offices is, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said impracticable without air-conditioning. In our factories we have air-conditioning, partly for reasons of protecting our product and partly for the employees, and we maintain a maximum temperature of 72 degrees under the most extreme outside conditions. But that can be done only with expansive plant. If this figure were put into the Bill it would, in effect, compel everybody to put unit air-conditioners into these offices. They are most expensive items. There are exceptional summers in this country when one get high temperatures in one's office. Goodness knows ! I have them in my office in Cannon Street. But you cannot help it going even higher than 75; without air-conditioning you cannot keep it below that figure. The actual optimum conditions for comfort under these extreme conditions are 72 degrees Fahrenheit, and 58 to 60 per cent. in relative humidity. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, talked about rises in temperature when large numbers of noble Lords come into the Chamber. Actually, every individual gives off 5 British thermal units per minute.

LORD AUCKLAND

The difficulty about this Amendment seems to me to be that there are many old offices which have main rooms facing the sun. One has the alternative either of keeping the window shut, and hoping that the sun will not blaze on one's face, or keeping the window open so that the sun streams right down the back of one's neck. If this Amendment were put into force it could possibly be applied to individual offices, which have air-conditioning or other forms of convenience; but old offices would, as my noble friend Lord Ampthill said, be faced with an enormous expense. In any case, even air-conditioning is not always foolproof. So, on the whole, while this Amendment has a good deal of merit in it—because I myself do not like excess heat—for practical purposes it would be very difficult to enforce.

LORD CARRINGTON

My noble friends behind me have produced some rather formidable arguments against this Amendment, but I must confess to having some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is trying to do. Everybody knows that it is most disagreeable to work in rooms that are grossly overheated. I think the real difficulty here is to put in the Bill a statutory maximum temperature. If one does so, to comply with the statutory maximum might be difficult in a good summer and entail o great deal of expenditure in putting in air-conditioning plant.

Of course, there have been other cases in the Factories Act where this problem has arisen. The way the difficulty has been overcome—and it has, in a sense, been much more acute in factories, as Lord Shepherd himself suggested—is by a comparable provision to that in Clause 6(5) of this Bill. This enables the Minister to prescribe a standard of reasonable temperature for all premises or any class of premises. That was the way in which the problem was tackled in the Factories Act. Regulations have been made which prescribe a maximum permissible temperature in factories carrying on a particular process. I think we shall be able to follow this course in this Bill. For example, in shops or offices attached to bakeries, or something of that kind, regulations could be made, under the subsection I have read out, prescribing a maximum temperature for that class of premises. Although I am in general sympathy with what the noble Lord is trying to do in his Amendment, I hope on the ground that there are already sufficient powers in the Bill to carry out what he has in mind, he will not press it.

LORD SHEPHERD

I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I appreciated when I put down the Amendment the considerable difficulty in enforcing such a provision in the Bill. Obviously, I have in mind bakeries, as well as offices in some of our older factories where conditions are pretty grim. I appreciate that the Minister can deal with this by regulation. Could the noble Lord undertake between now and Third Reading, to seek an assurance from the Minister that it will be his intention to bring into force a regulation dealing with perhaps the worst types of offices that may exist in the country in which there is unreasonable temperature?

LORD SHACKLETON

Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to support that plea. We all accept that this is not possible in general terms. This applies not only to offices attached to bakeries, but also to department stores; and for long periods during the summer some sections in department stores enjoy, or suffer from, excessive temperature. I know this directly from my own firm, because of the vast amount of money we have had to spend in trying to ease this problem, and obviously through good design it could be done in time. It is just that one would like to see something in the Bill.

LORD CARRINGTON

I can certainly give the assurance that it is the intention of my right honourable friend to see that they work in a reasonable temperature. I have no doubt that if there are classes of premises such as those mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Shackleton, he will bring in regulations to see that temperatures in them are kept to a reasonable level.

LORD LATHAM

Would such regulations be applicable to the local authorities and to individual premises, as distinct from a class of premises?

LORD CARRINGION

Yes: either to a class of premises or to individual premises.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.16 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (3): and it shall be a duty of the employer to allow such persons reasonable access to any such means of warming themselves.

The noble Lord said: I hope to be brief on this Amendment, but I regard it as of considerable importance. We are back to the problem of cold weather. We know that there is to be a minimum temperature of 60.8° Fahrenheit. There are some premises where this may not be practical, or where it will be impossible because of the merchandise stored there. Therefore the Government have made it a provision that in the case of such premises alternative rooms should be provided and made available to their staff, so that from time to time they may go there to warm themselves.

But there is nothing in this clause, as I see it, which makes it obligatory upon the employers to permit the persons concerned to have reasonable opportunities to go and warm themselves. All it requires them to do is to provide these facilities. There are a number of people, for instance men and women who work in kiosks and outdoor shops, who may find it extremely difficult, perhaps because of shortage of staff, to leave their place of work in order to go and get warm. Therefore I feel we should lay on the employer the duty not only to provide these facilities but of seeing to it that the individuals concerned have reasonable opportunities to take advantage of them. I should like to refer your Lordships to Clause 13, which deals with seating facilities for which the Government have allowed special provision. I suggest that if this should apply to seating facilities, it should apply also to the people who wish to be able to warm themselves. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 46, after ("themselves") insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD BURDEN

I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and to call attention to the exemption in subsection (3)(b) which deals with rooms in which the maintenance of a reasonable tem- perature is not practicable. Take, as an example, the maintenance of a reasonable temperature in an open-fronted shop. This might not be regarded as reasonable. I know that there is a general trend towards the close-fronted shop, and obviously that is desirable, but this Bill does nothing to encourage the fitting of shop fronts so as to improve the working conditions of the shop assistants. In fact, if a shopkeeper knows that he will have to provide adequate arrangements if he fits a shop front, he may be discouraged from so doing. The acceptance of this Amendment will help considerably those who are compelled for the time being to work in an open-fronted shop.

I should like to see the exemption of open-fronted shops removed entirely, not only in the interests of those who are employed in them but also on grounds of public health. Surely, it is a little unreasonable, with our knowledge of hygiene and so on, that foodstuffs such as fish, meat and so on should be exposed for sale in open-fronted shops, running the risk of dirt, dust and other matter from the streets, Therefore, there is everything to be said for encouraging shopkeepers to fit fronts to their shops, instead of giving them an incentive, such as this Bill does without the acceptance of this Amendment, to avoid fitting shop fronts. In those circumstances, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

LORD NEWTON

I quite take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in putting down this Amendment. And of course it is quite true, as he said, that under subsection (3) of Clause 13 a duty is placed upon the employer to permit his employees to use seats when the use of them does not interfere with their work. That provision, of course, is based on Section 37 of the Shops Act, and the circumstances in which the provision has effect can be more closely defined, I think, than in Clause 6 of this Bill, relating to temperature. What I mean is that it is reasonably easy to decide that, when there are no customers in the shop and there is no urgent work to do, then a reasonable opportunity for sitting down exists. On the other hand, in the case of the noble Lord's Amendment, as I understand the position the employer would be forced by law to allow his employees to leave their work and go away to warm themselves whenever they said they felt cold.

LORD SHEPHERD

No, no. I never said so. The words are "reasonable access".

LORD NEWTON

I concern myself, as we all have, with what is the probable meaning of the words which the noble Lord has put in his Amendment, and I am advised that that is in fact the case. An employer would be obliged to let them go away from their work and warm themselves whenever they said they felt cold, and quite obviously that could lead to very difficult situations. So this is a very much more difficult and imprecise provision to enforce, than one which covers the employer's duty as regards providing seats.

I would point out that the Bill already states that, in the case of rooms to which subsection (3) of Clause 6 applies, conveniently accessible and effective means of enabling employed persons to warm themselves must be provided. I would suggest to your Lordships that the circumstances of the premises covered by this Bill are so various that it is really better to leave to the common sense of the employers and their employees the arrangements for making use of the means of warming. I really do not, for that reason, think that this Amendment is necessary, and I am quite certain that it would be very difficult to enforce it satisfactorily. So I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw it.

LORD SHEPHERD

That is a very unsatisfactory reply. In fact, the replies appear to be getting more unsatisfactory as this Committee stage proceeds. We have a position where we have recognised that there should be a proper standard of temperature for workers to work in. We recognise, however, that there should be exclusions; in the main, because of the merchandise that may be in the store. If the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is correct in saying that, because they are fully employed throughout their working day, employees should not have the opportunity of going to warm themselves if the temperature of the premises is below the minimum standard to which we have been forced to agree, then I think that is utterly wrong. I should have thought it was clearly understood from the Bill that it was the Government's intention that, where rooms could not be given this minimum standard, there should be alternative arrangements made for the staff to warm themselves from time to time. But the Bill does not say that the employer shall permit his staff, even if it is to his inconvenience, to go into those rooms to warm themselves, to avail themselves of the requirements that you are writing into the Bill.

I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that he might consider the woman who works in a tobacco kiosk. Kiosks are the most draughty places in which a person can work. The assistant is often standing on concrete, rarely with any form of heating, certainly exposed to the winds and draughts, particularly those that blow around railway stations. But there may be only one person working in a kiosk, and according to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, the employer does not have to find time for that person to be able to go to use the facilities that the Government say the employer should provide. I think that is utterly ridiculous. If the Government really believe that these provisions should be made, they should ensure that the operatives have a reasonable chance of going to warm themselves, to make use of these facilities.

The noble Lord said that the situation with seats is different, but there are a number of employers who are reluctant to see their staff sitting on seats. They think it appears rather bad to the customer when he or she walks into the shop. But we in Parliament do not accept that. We say that, if an operative is not immediately employed, then he or she should have the opportunity to sit and rest. I think it is necessary, where the premises come under Clause 6(3)(a) and (b) that during the person's working time and at reasonable opportunities the employer should see that the operative has a chance to use the facilities that you, as the Government, feel should be written into the Bill. I do not think that this is an unreasonable attitude to take. I hope the noble Lord can have second thoughts.

LORD HAWKE

I think that the words written into the Bill as it is provide a reasonable assumption that these means of warming are there for use. I know what the noble Lord is working at, but I believe that, in order to deal with a few ladies in kiosks, he runs a very grave risk of making a rather wide abuse, because it seems to me that this Bill will apply to places like Covent Garden and Smithfield markets, and the like. The porters there are working outdoors in outdoor clothing, and so on. If the noble Lord's Amendment were passed, those porters, who we all know are a very independent lot and are perfectly capable of holding the consumers and the producers to ransom at any moment, will decide that they have to have access to special methods of warming themselves as soon as they feel like having a sit down and a rest. The whole market will be subject to this form of "pressure", shall I call it? I believe that the Bill as it stands meets absolutely the noble Lord's point, and that it is a mistake to try to make any amendments to it.

LORD BURDEN

Can we hope that, if and when the new Covent Garden market is built, there will be some concern for the outdoor employees, and that they will not be left to warm themselves in perhaps the traditional way by which porters warm themselves to-day which I will not mention—I am sure it is in the minds of most noble Lords. But in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Newton, ignored the powerful plea that my noble friend Lord Shepherd put forward, calling attention to the fact that men and women work indoors, in places like tobacco kiosks, shops retailing fish and meat, and so on, in all weathers. The Bill provides—and we have accepted it—that no heat can reasonably be provided in the rooms in which they work. We have accepted that; but surely it is not unreasonable that there should be some room where the men and women can go, reasonably—not rushing off neglecting business, but reasonably; and that word is in the Amendment—to alleviate the effects of the inclement weather which they have to endure without any protection. May we ask the Minister to look at this particular Amendment again, to see whether he can accept it?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Before my noble friend Lord Newton replies, I hope he will say something to answer what my noble friend Lord Hawke has said. No doubt there are abuses which could spring up in this respect, but, clearly, there is no earthly point in providing the sort of rooms which are mentioned in the last part of subsection (3) of Clause 5 unless people are going to be able to use them. It therefore may be that my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government think that the Bill itself implies that there shall be reasonable access to these rooms. If so, I have no doubt that the noble Lords opposite would be perfectly satisfied; but I hope my noble friend is not going to try to resist this Amendment on a point of drafting, saying that the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says that people can go to these rooms at whatever time they like. This is not what the Amendment says: it says that they shall have "reasonable access" to them, which is quite different. I say, with respect, that it is an entirely false point to resist this Amendment on that ground, and I hope he will not do so. If he can agree with my noble friend Lord Hawke, so much the better.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

Surely it is a matter of words here. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he says that the words should be "reasonable access", because that sounds as if they must not be made to climb any walls or go round fences, and that they should be able to get to the rooms. What I should like more is to have such a phrase as "at reasonable intervals", or words to that effect. I think we should all agree that it would have to be laid down in some way that people should not be able to say, as some of us like constantly to say, "We wish to go and get warm" immediately they get cold. They would have to stay for a reasonable time. Granted, we could not put into the Bill what that time is; but I wonder whether some such words as "at a reasonable interval" would not meet the case.

LORD SHEPHERD

I must respond to the very helpful suggestion of the noble Lady. I appreciate that when one puts an Amendment down one does it to the best of one's ability. The intention of this Amendment is quite clear—and it is very much in line with what has been said by the noble Lady. If my words do not have that effect, I would be very ready to accept other words that had the right effect: but I would ask the Government now whether they can meet us on this point. If they are ready to respond, then I am ready to withdraw my Amendment, and we can consider behind the scenes what words should be put in. I hope the Government can say they will concede the principle behind this Amendment.

LORD NEWTON

Subsection (3) says: … there shall be provided for persons who are employed to work in a room to which, but for the foregoing provisions of this subsection, subsection (1) of this section would apply, conveniently accessible and effective means of enabling them to warm themselves. The sort of premises which would be covered by that—and this is in reply, mainly, to the noble Lord, Lord Burden—are an office with a counter or grille exposed to the open air, such as an office in a bus station; open-fronted places like greengrocers' and fishmongers' shops; refrigerated rooms, and rooms in remote railway premises. Those are the sort of premises with which this subsection is meant to deal.

I explained why I could not accept the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I suggested to the Committee—and I think this is true—that it would be extremely difficult to define what was meant by "reasonable access" to these facilities for warming. That is why I suggested that there are some things which are better left to local arrangements and to the good sense of all those concerned. We have not written into this Bill that an employer should permit his employees reasonable access to washing facilities. I do not know whether your Lordships think that that would be a foolish thing to do, but I should have thought that it would.

LORD SHEPHERD

But they will be on the premises.

LORD NEWTON

It is very much the same sort of provision which the noble Lord is now asking me to accept. I think the Committee must appreciate that there are limits to the lengths to which one can go in describing details in a Bill of this kind. It is a very long and complicated Bill already; and, however far one goes, it is always possible to say that there is yet another situation which has not been met.

Having said that, I will say again that I cannot accept the Amendment on the Paper, but I will certainly consider again this principle in the light of the views expressed by your Lordships. I cannot commit myself to-day to accepting it, but I will indeed look at it in the light of what has been said. However, I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind what I think are the extreme difficulties of defining sufficiently accurately the situation which might result from the difficulties to which I referred in my first speech.

LORD SHEPHERD

I will respond to that by withdrawing the Amendment. I would say only this to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. In 1959 the Government took the view that this Bill was not necessary. They assumed that, with the improvements that were going on, the conditions in offices and shops would be such that a Bill of this kind was not necessary. We now find that the Government have come to the view that this Bill is necessary. It is wrong for us to assume anything. We should try to write into the Bill what we can, to cover the position of the workers. Later on, I shall show where this House let legislation go through which perhaps brought about a major change of law without our being aware of it. So I hope we shall not work on the basis that we can assume anything. In those circumstances, in view of the agreement of the Government to consider this matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Ventilation]:

5.38 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), after "air", to insert: free from dust and fumes".

The noble Lord said: In this clause we are dealing with ventilation. This is a matter which the Gowers Committee considered fully. They had many witnesses before them, and they considered the Acts which had preceded their period of examination of this question. They did point out in relation to this whole matter of the exclusion of fumes, and in trying to secure pure air for people working inside buildings, that the Factories Act closely followed the Public Health (London) Act in requiring that there should be suitable and adequate provision made for maintaining adequate ventilation, and for rendering harmless, so far as possible, all fumes, dust and other impurities. The witnesses, both lay and medical, who appeared before the Gowers Committee were unable to find better words than those included in that Public Health (London) Act and the Factories Act. They recommended that in any future Bill on this matter—the sort of Bill we are now discussing—the words of the Factories Act and the Public Health (London) Act should be embodied.

The Minister, although he sets out here to try to ensure that there is reasonable ventilation, has not included the words that were, in fact, recommended by the Gowers Committee, on the exclusion of fumes in particular. We are trying to put right what the Government, have left out of this particular Bill. We think the exclusion of fumes is no less necessary for the office worker than for the factory worker. Most of us know that many of these offices we are talking about are situated in factories where processes are going on in which fumes are emitted. Many of these offices are tucked away in the corners of large factory floors. Some of them are chemical plants, distilleries and premises where, I am told, refrigeration is much used. There is always a danger of the escape of ammonia from great refrigeration plants, and, indeed, sometimes an escape takes place which can be ignited and cause considerable fire and other damage. We think that to try to exclude all fumes is a practicable measure and one on which we ought to insist in a Bill of this sort to protect the health of office workers equally with factory workers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 25, after "air" insert the said words.—(Lord Champion.)

LORD HAWKE

We on this side of the Committee, I think, have sympathy with this type of Amendment, but I suggest to the noble Lord who moved it that it is an utterly impracticable thing to do. If he has ever sat in a room and watched a ray of sunlight enter, then he will realise that every scrap of air everywhere, except in a chemical laboratory, is full of dust and it always has been, and it is impossible to exclude it. Therefore I should have thought that the words in the Bill adequate supplies of fresh or artificially purified air would meet his case, because I should have thought that adequate supplies of fresh or artificially purified air excludes air which is full of fumes. Although sympathetic to the noble Lord's aims, I believe his purpose is achieved in the Bill and that the Amendment is quite impracticable.

LORD BURDEN

I should like to say a word or two in support of this Amendment, and I speak out of a fairly long experience of offices, and railway offices in particular. I say in all seriousness that if a clause, Amendment or provision of this kind had been law, then over the years that I knew the railway service many lives which have been shortened would have been prolonged. I know it was not the fault of the railway companies. They were starved of capital. Their offices were built in the early days of the railways and they suffered from all the inconveniences and difficulties arising from that. I cannot say from my own knowledge what has been done since the Nationalisation Act of 1947, because my active life, so far as my being in some measure responsible for bringing inadequate office conditions to the attention of the railway companies, had then ceased. But I was glad to note what my noble friend Lord Lindgren told us in the Second Reading debate: that, since nationalisation, very great improvements have been effected in office accommodation. This may seem, on the face of it, trying to ask for the impossible. It is not doing that. We are only asking that men and women who work in a fairly confined space should at least have the advantage, so far as they can get it, of breathing uncontaminated air, and not air likely to affect their lungs and shorten their lives. It is a very serious Amendment, and I do ask the Government to treat it in that spirit.

5.45 p.m.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

I am sure this is a serious Amendment, but I must say that as I listened to the debate, I came to the conclusion—and I may be entirely wrong and not have understood it clearly—that in an office you can never open the window. We have only to think of the dust that comes in—and you can see it on furniture—to realise that you cannot open a window in London. I have not followed the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, about the ray of sunshine. I have lately seen much more dust than sun. But it will be impossible ever to open the window. I understand that in large buildings they may be able to have facilities for the air to be purified, but to say, as we said under this Amendment, that in ordinary offices windows could never be opened, and all forms of air must be produced artificially, is not being practicable. I ant in favour of the very best conditions, but I cannot see that we should accept this Amendment and say that in future in no office can you ever open the window.

LORD SOMERS

May I add a word or two? The air outside in the street is a great deal more lethal than the air in any office, however old fashioned, whether it is provided with artificial air purification or not. It is crammed with diesel fumes and carbon monoxide from thousands of cars, besides other delights, and therefore I cannot help feeling there is no reason for this Amendment at all.

LORD LINDGREN

The noble Lords opposite think of offices and office workers as associated entirely with solicitors' or accountants' offices in the City of London or in other big cities. It is equally true that some of us on this side with industrial experience always think of the worst and not the best. But I can assure noble Lords opposite that I have seen office workers working in blast furnaces where in fact the steel is being smelted. The offices lie along the whole ridge of the furnace. The offices lie above the furnaces and the fumes and dust come through and in the case I am talking about there was no attempt to protect the office workers. I can think of another instance, of an aircraft factory where the time office was over the paint shop. If noble Lords had ever had to sit in an office over an aircraft paint shop, in which sprays were being used, they would not feel like having dinner, I can tell them bluntly, after sucking in the air in that office. Of course, the workers using the paint sprays wore masks and were given milk, but the poor old clerks in the office up top got nothing at all.

If the machinery of the Bill excludes fumes as well, there is a point in what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, says. But that is the type of office which we were considering when we put down this Amendment. Such offices still exist—not in the best of firms, I agree—and fumes and dust come into the offices and no extractor fans are used. It is for those offices that we put down this Amendment.

LORD DENHAM

When I answered an earlier Amendment from the opposite side of the House, I was taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for quoting the Factories Act, and was told that conditions in factories were not in any way comparable with conditions in premises covered by this Bill. I am now having the Factories Act quoted at me.

LORD SHACKLETON

It really is unfair to take an argument that applies to a completely different set of circumstances. We were talking about the spacing of machinery.

LORD DENHAM

We were talking about the health and comfort of employees, and the argument applies equally well in this case. There is already in the Factories Act a provision dealing with dust and fumes, and the noble Lord is seeking to bring this Bill into line with it. In fact, his Amendment goes much wider than Section 4 of the Factories Act, which is concerned with rendering harmless such fumes and dust as may be injurious to health and which are generated in the course of the factory processes". If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, all air in office, shop or railway premises would have to be free from dust. I suggest that it would be impossible to comply with such a requirement.

Injurious dust and fumes are a very real problem in some factories, with which the Ministry of Labour have been actively concerned over many years in administering the Factories Act. But the problem does not occur to anything like the same extent in offices and shops, and therefore the Government have been reluctant to include in the Bill a provision to meet a fairly rare eventuality. Where such cases arise, they will usually be in an office in a factory, where the nuisance arises from outside the office, and thus can be dealt with under the Factories Act. In any case, I am satisfied that there are adequate powers under Clause 20(1) for my right honourable friend to make special regulations protecting workers against risks of injury to health arising from—and here I should like to quote the words used in the clause: the use of any machinery, plant, equipment, appliance or substance, the carrying on of any operation or the use of any process". This is a sufficiently wide definition to cover the hazards which the noble Lord may have in mind, and also the hazards which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, quoted, and I must therefore ask the Committee to resist this Amendment as unnecessary.

LORD CHAMPION

The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has pointed out a very useful clause in this Bill. I must admit that I had not spotted the point when this Amendment went down in the first place. All I can hope is that the Minister will use his powers under that clause. I am bound to agree with everyone who said that there is great difficulty about excluding dust. Unlike the noble Baroness, I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was talking about when he spoke of the rays of sunshine being filled with masses of particles of dust floating about in them. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that there are many more lethal places in London than an office. I think that about the worst place in London is Oxford Street on a still day. That is almost more lethal than smoking twenty cigarettes, about which the Lord President was talking earlier. I do not want to delay the Committee on this matter, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, was on a false point when he quoted the Factories Act against us and said that we had quoted it against him. It all depends on the circumstances of the case. Having regard to what I think is a reasonably satisfactory reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Sanitary conveniences]:

LORD CARRINGTON

The purpose of subsection (4) of Clause 9 is to enable the Minister by regulation to require separate lavatory accommodation for the sexes. The subsection states that where persons of both sexes are, "or are intended to be", employed to work in the premises, the facilities will not be deemed to be suitable unless separate accommodation is afforded for persons of each sex. On reflection, we do not think it would be possible to enforce a provision of the regulations in cases where the employer merely had the intention of employing at some date in the future a staff consisting of both sexes. The words are therefore unnecessary and we would rather they were omitted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 22, leave out ("or are intended to be").—(Lord Carrington.)

LORD SHACKLETON

Surely it would be a little late to do anything about it, when a firm actually decided to employ the two sexes. Surely, there is really merit in this phrase. I appreciate the Government's difficulty, but I should have thought that it was a mistake to leave out these words.

LORD CARRINGTON

I do not think that it will be too late. If a firm intend to employ workers of both sexes, they will have regard to the obligations they have to comply with when they do employ them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.59 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (4): Provided that no such regulations shall apply to any premises in which fewer than eleven people are employed.

The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Merrivale has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that he has had to leave the House. I am very willing to move his Amendment on his behalf, although I do not think that I shall say what he would have said in the circumstances. But I think that I can use this as a platform to get cleared up a point under the Bill which causes me great difficulty. I appreciate that I am probably wrong in doing it, because only part of the problem relates to the sort of offices with which I am familiar, a set of barristers' chambers; but no doubt the same sort of factors would be relevant to any other professional offices—those of a solicitor, accountant, architect or anybody of that nature. I think of the problem that is going to arise where there are, in this kind of partnership or atmosphere, a large number of working people, or indeed a small number, who are not covered by the terms of the Bill, because they are not, in the terms of Clause 1, "persons employed to work therein"—they are self-employed. I do not think—and I should like my noble friend Lord Newton to confirm this—they are within the scope of the Bill at all. Nevertheless, they may employ, for the sake of argument, one male clerk and a female typist.

We come now to the provisions of Clause 9 in regard to lavatories, and there is also the provision in Clause 10 about separate washing facilities. It seems to me that there will be grave difficulty in some of these small offices, where only a small number of people are employed, in providing the separate facilities which are needed. Noble Lords opposite may well say that this is only part of the problem. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who mentioned to me the other day that similar circumstances may apply in a coal yard, where there are several men who move the coal about and two women who do the typing, and where the circumstances would be very different from those in the sort of professional accommodation I have in mind. Therefore, it may be that my noble friend Lord Merrivale was not right to lay down a statutory exemption for a minimum number of employees, although it is true that the Gowers Report, in, I think, paragraph 22, mentions a minimum of six, and the Regulations under the Factories Act only require separate lavatory accommodation for 25 people and more.

Nevertheless, the difficulty is this. The only alternative to providing the separate accommodation necessary under this clause and Clause 10 is to get an exemption under the later clauses of the Bill. I may be able to save the time of the Committee if I now mention a point that I have in mind. It can be done in two ways: either you can have an ad hoc exemption under Clause 46 which goes on for a certain period of time and can be renewed, or you can have a general exemption which the Minister allows by regulation under Clause 45.

What really concerns me is the point under Clause 45, because the Minister is empowered to make these exemptions, which noble Lords may think cover the sort of difficulty with which I am dealing. The provisions in Clause 45(4) say: The Minister shall not make an order under this section except after consultation with an organisation which appears to him to be representative of workers concerned and an organisation which appears to him to be representative of employers concerned and an organisation which appears to him to be representative of any other persons who appear to him to be concerned.

In the kind of small concern of which I am thinking, it is most unlikely that there will be any organisation which represents the one typist or the two barristers' clerks, or the one draughtsman in the architect's office; and, therefore, as the clause is now drafted, it will be impossible and illegal for the Minister to make an exemption in that last case, because he will not be able to carry out the statutory consultation. It seems to me that there is a flaw in the Bill if this is so.

While I am talking about Clause 45 (of course, I have no business to be doing so, but perhaps your Lordships will forgive me) I would say that I think there is something wrong in subsection (5), where it says: In this section 'organisation' includes … in relation to workers, an association of trade unions … and 'trade union' includes an association of trade unions". I think if my noble friend will look at that he will find that something has gone wrong somewhere in the definition. But that is beside the point.

I should like to know from my noble friend how he thinks the Minister will deal with the small concern. Maybe it would not be possible in the coal yard to have an exemption at all, but there must be dozens, if not thousands, of offices where there are one or two people employed by a series of partners, or others who are self-employed and do not come under the terms of the Bill, and where the Minister will not be able to make an exemption under Clause 45. I am sure it is not what the Government intend, but it will be the law if the Bill passes as it now stands. It may be that Lord Merrivale's Amendment is not the right way to do it; nevertheless, there must be some way to deal with it, and I think it ought to be put in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD LINDGREN

I do not want to cross swords with the noble Viscount, who is so often helpful to us on this side of the House, but I can assure him that I wish the trade unions of this country were as much a closed shop and as effective in regard to rates of pay and conditions of service as the legal profession; and if the barristers can do it, I should have thought that those associated with them, the barristers' clerks and their other clerks, could also do it. I can assure him that the conditions under which he and his colleagues in lawyers' offices work are such that under this Bill they need have no fear. The noble Viscount does not seem to agree; but, so far as we are con cerned, looking at it purely from the point of view of the worst cases, we should be quite happy if all the conditions that exist in all the lawyers' offices—

LORD SHEPHERD

Some.

LORD LINDGREN

I keep as far away from the law as I can, and judge it only from the outside. If the conditions were the same, I think they would be good. But looking at it purely from the point of view of small offices, particularly in the provinces (let me say, quite frankly, that, so far as London is concerned, in the main, if the conditions are too bad, the employer just cannot get clerical workers), the conditions under which clerical workers have to work—because clerical work is comparatively scarce—are very bad indeed. Perhaps the worst feature of the lavatory and washing facilities being used by both sexes, not quite to the extent of the coalyard and the coal loader, as referred to by the noble Viscount, but in association with other trades and types of workers is that it is very embarrassing, not only for the women but for the men as well. That problem ought to be dealt with. We feel that the clauses which give exemption would enable reasonable conditions where there are one or two people working in close association, by giving them the opportunity of getting exemption through the local authority.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

While I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, that I should feel rather chary about accepting any fixed number of persons employed in an office to which the regulations should not apply, I feel that the moving of this Amendment has done a considerable service by drawing the attention of your Lordships and of the Government to the very real difficulties which exist in bringing adequate regulations into being over this matter. As my noble friend said, in a small office employing only one or two persons of each sex it may be completely impossible, for mere reasons of space, to provide separate lavatory accommodation or washing accommodation: it may be that the construction of the building renders it impossible. In some London offices with which I am familiar, though there may be a number of entirely separate establishments on one floor, there are communal lavatories, sometimes serving both sexes and sometimes serving separate sexes. I think that the matter is one of great importance, because we are anxious to get in all offices and shops the best sanitary conditions that are practicable. At the same time, we have to be careful that we do not impose, either in the Bill itself or by subsequent regulations, conditions themselves so stringent that if put into effect they will render untenable a considerable number of the offices in large towns, such as London and elsewhere.

6.10 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

I can see the case which has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, but obviously we on this side of the House would not wish in any way to diminish the general requirements of this clause. May I put this point to the Government? If exemptions are to be considered in this matter they should not be given under Clause 45, by the Minister. I think it would be utterly wrong for the Minister in this case to make a general classification that solicitors' offices should not come within this clause. I think this is a question which should be left to the local authority. In other words, the local authority would grant exemptions to specific offices according to the type of facility that office could provide. If it is in the City, in the legal area—I think it is the Inns of Court—no doubt an arrangement could be made whereby the offices would combine to provide separate accommodation for the sexes. It may be possible or it may not, but that should be borne in mind when the local authority are considering whether an exemption should be given to an office.

I hope the Minister will give us a clear understanding that the Government do not contemplate that the Minister will grant exemptions under Clause 45 to a classification of offices, as was put to us by the noble Viscount. I think there is a case in certain offices, where there is a small staff who are known to each other, and where perhaps conditions are good, where exemption might be considered. It all depends upon the circumstances. I do not know whether it would be necessary to look at Clause 46 further if the doubts that have been expressed here were acceptable to the Government, and whether there should be some proviso as to the number of persons who should be in an office for which an exemption should not be granted. At the moment, it appears to be a fairly wide exemption without any regard to the number of operatives. This is a point we could consider later. I hope the noble Viscount will agree that, if there were to be exemptions they should be given under Clause 46. It should be for the local authorities to consider premises individually, entirely upon their merits, and perhaps the type of trade or occupation; it should not be a wide exemption given by the Minister.

LORD NEWTON

I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Mansfield that the problem of providing separate sanitary accommodation in smaller premises is not an easy matter, and I think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross recognised that in moving his Amendment. We certainly do not think it would be right to do it by writing a specific provision of this character into the Bill. What the Government have in mind is to deal with the whole problem of "suitable and sufficient" sanitary accommodation, as the Bill calls it, by means of regulations. It will be possible, through wide consultations, to take into account the opinions of all interested organisations before any regulations are made. Obviously, the question of allowing shared accommodation in the smaller premises will have to be carefully considered; and it will be. I do not think the question of granting exemptions will necessarily arise. It could, but what we have in mind is to make regulations covering the scale of provision after these consultations in the case of smaller offices, and it is possible that the regulations will be devoted to the question of how many persons are employed—that question being related to the distribution of the sexes between the numbers.

I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about how exemptions should be granted, if it is necessary to grant them. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said, and I think rightly, that he probably had no business to attach Clause 45 to this Amendment, and I did not attempt to suggest that he was not right or that your Lordships should do anything about it. I take the points about making orders for exemption, as opposed to making regulations if there were no organisations representing the workers in a small class of premises. I will certainly look at the wording of the clause to see whether it needs alteration. As regards subsection (5) of Clause 45 (I am still out of order, but I hope only for a moment), the answer to my noble friend's suggestion that that needed looking at is this. The T.U.C. is an association of trade unions, some of which are themselves associations of trade unions, and this definition is meant to cover the T.U.C. as well as individual trade unions. That being so, I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amendment, I have one query on the reply the noble Lord gave. As I understood it, he said the Government intend to issue regulations which may specify that certain sizes of offices need not provide separate accommodation. Am I right in that? If that is so, it seems to be contrary to subsection (4), which says that provision of sanitary accommodation shall be deemed not to be suitable for the purposes of subsection (1) unless it affords proper separate accommodation for … each sex. I understood that separate accommodation must be provided in all circumstances. There is no question at this moment of this being done by regulation. That is my understanding of it. But there can be exemptions where it may be necessary. I hope the Minister is not right: that the provision of separate accommodation will now be dependent on regulations.

LORD NEWTON

Subsection (4) of Clause 9 says: … regulations under this section may provide that … provision shall be deemed not to be suitable for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section unless it affords proper separate accommodation for persons of each sex. I do not want to make any definite statements about exactly what form regulations under this clause will take. They have first to be the subject of consultation. All I said was that it is conceivable that the regulations may deal with this problem of how different sexes are to be dealt with where only a small number of people are employed in the premises. That is all.

LORD SHEPHERD

I still say that, reading this, in spite of the word "may", I do not know what emphasis may be put on it. There is a comma, and then it says … provision shall be deemed not to be suitable … . It seems to me that that is a clear statement that, unless separate accommodation is provided, the conveniences would not be deemed to be suitable. The regulations may provide—the noble Lord shakes his head. This is my reading of the Bill, and perhaps we could discuss this later. I hope there is no question of this matter being diluted.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, because it has certainly cleared up many points on which I must say I was very unsure. I think, with respect, that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is wrong. I do not think there is any definite provision in this Bill for separate accommodation for sexes unless it is laid down by regulation. I think the reading of subsection (4) of Clause 9 means that. It certainly seemed to me that that is what my noble friend Lord Newton said.

However, I am very glad indeed to have heard the speeches of noble Lords, and I feel they may do a great deal to clarify the matter. If the exemptions in cases of which I am thinking are to come under Clause 46, I hope that the provision in the Bill later on, whenever it is, by which the Ministry are to see that the standards throughout of the enforcing authorities are kept similar, will make quite sure that this particular provision is universally enforced in the same way because I think that this is important. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton for saying that he will look at the point about consultation under Clause 45(4) and for his explanation about the trade unions. Again, my thanks to noble Lords for their very helpful explanation on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD AIREDALE

I wonder why this clause uses the rather nebulous expression "sanitary convenience"? I thought I perhaps had the answer to this problem when I saw that subsection (6) of this clause refers to the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. I supposed that the very polite Victorians had coined this phrase which was immortalised by being repeated in all subsequent legislation for the sake of consistency. But I was quite wrong. Because if you turn up the relevant section of the Act of 1897 you find it opens: The local authority may erect such public ashpits, waterclosets, privies, and urinals, and in such situations, as they may think fit. It is impossible to speak more plainly than that; so who are we, in the middle of the century of the common man, to use the silly phrase "sanitary convenience", which, as my noble Leader said in the Second Reading debate, could perfectly well describe a pocket handkerchief or, for that matter, a dustcart?

LORD CARRINGTON

I do not know, but I will pass all that on to the Parliamentary draftsmen. But I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Liberal party for a most notable and singular contribution to this debate.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Washing facilities]:

6.25 p.m.

LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1), after "cold" to insert "water". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This is only a minor Amendment dealing with drafting. Subsection (1) of Clause 10 requires the provision of a supply of clean running hot and cold or warm water for washing, and it will be seen that the words "hot and cold or warm water" are, strictly speaking, capable of two interpretations. The interpretation intended is clearly that, as an alternative to a supply of running hot and cold water, a supply of warm water may be provided. But the words could alternatively mean that there could be provided a supply of running hot water.

The form of the words in the clause, it is true, follows precisely that in Section 58 of the Factories Act, 1961, and the ambiguity in that Act has been noted by authors of commentaries on the Act. I understand that the Ministry of Labour take the view that to amend the wording in the current Bill would be to throw doubts upon the provision in the Factories Act, and that they therefore would not be disposed to accept this Amendment which is now being moved, which aims merely to remove that ambiguity. The Association of Municipal Corporations take the other view, and I agree with them, that it is undesirable to perpetuate an admitted fault in drafting, and that the Government, in accepting this Amendment, could use the opportunity to explain the correct interpretation of the Factories Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved, Page 8, line 1, after ("cold") to insert ("water").—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD DENHAM

My noble friend has put forward this Amendment very reasonably, as he says, to make it clear beyond doubt the true meaning of the words in this subsection, which is that the employer has the alternative of providing either two taps, one of hot and one of cold water, or a single supply of warm water. Again, as my noble friend has said, our main reason for advising your Lordships to reject this Amendment—

LORD SHEPHERD

I thought he was going to get it.

LORD DENHAM

—is that Section 58(1) of the Factories Act, in which, as my noble friend has said, the same wording is used, might have doubts cast on its meaning if we altered the wording in this Bill. I do not think that the other interpretation, that any employer who provides warm water might subsequently also be made to provide a supply of hot water, is very likely to happen. For this reason, and especially for the first reason, which, as I have said, the noble Lord realised, of casting doubt on the wording in the Factories Act, I must advise the Committee to reject this Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

I do not want to harry my noble friend unnecessarily, but I thought one of the objects of my noble friend Lord Milverton was to try to get a definition of what the Factories Act meant, and we did not get it from him.

LORD DENHAM

The wording is: a supply of clean, running hot and cold or warm water". That is the wording used in this Bill, and the same wording is used in the Factories Act. My noble friend Lord Milverton is worried that that could be read another way. In other words, if an employer provides, very properly, for his employees a supply of warm water for them to wash their hands, an inspector is liable to come along and say, "Warm water is all very well, but where is the hot that the Act stipulates that you must also have?" That is the interpretation that the noble Lord is slightly afraid of, and I am trying to cast doubt on its ever coming about.

LORD LINDGREN

As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, his view was, in fact, that inspectors who were operating the existing Factories Act had some difficulty with its wording. If in fact it is correct, and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, to say that there had been some difficulty in administering the Act—the noble Lord shakes his head, and if I am wrong I will sit down straight away.

LORD MILVERTON

I think the position is that the Association of Municipal Corporations say there is an absurdity which they would like to see removed. I presume they are speaking from experience of their offices.

LORD SOMERS

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to mix hot and cold water in order to produce warm, and I should have thought that the presence of cold water was essential in hot weather in an office where people are constantly wanting a drink.

LORD DENHAM

The words are used in the Factories Act because in some factories it is found convenient to have a pipe supplying ready-mixed warm water for the use of employees, and the same definition has been put into the Shops and Offices Act because we have had this possibility coming up before in the case of offices that are part of factory premises and the same supply of piped warm water might be convenient to be used.

LORD HAWKE

We all of us in our homes know the condition when water which was intended to be hot is only warm. Is this warm water by intent or warm water by accident?

LORD DENHAM

Warm by intent.

LORD MILVERTON

While remarking, finally, that it is sad that the Government's regrettable devotion to verbal obscurity should now have afflicted their legal draftsman, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CARRINGTON

This is a comparable Amendment to one which your Lordships accepted, No. 33, but this one applies to washing facilities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 13, leave out ("or are intended to be").—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Supply of drinking water]:

6.35 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1) after "the premises" to insert: not forming part of an area housing W.C. or urinal stalls, unless the drinking point and vessels to be used for drinking purposes are or can be sited more than twenty feet away from any W.C. Or urinal.

The noble Lord said: We are dealing in this clause with the supply of drinking water. It may be surprising to your Lordships that even in some new buildings, let alone some old buildings, the only supply of drinking water available to staffs of offices is in lavatories, sometimes in very close proximity to a urinal and W.C. I suggest that that is not a suitable place for the supply of drinking water. I appreciate that subsection (1), in the second line, refers to: … maintained, at suitable places conveniently accessible to the persons … ", but, "suitable" is a very doubtful word so far as its meaning is concerned. I do not know whether it would be considered suitable for public health, at least, if drinking water were available in close proximity to a urinal. I think under this Bill we ought to have it quite clear. Under this clause the Minister has not the power of regulation. Therefore, I suggest the words in my Amendment ought to be written into the Bill in order that the available supply should not be housed in a lavatory, in close proximity to the conveniences. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 13, after ("premises") insert the said words.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD AMULREE

I should, very briefly, like to support the noble Lord in the Amendment he has proposed. I do not think it is a very suitable arrangement when the sole supply of drinking water comes from a tap which is so near a W.C. or urinal. I therefore trust the Government will look kindly upon the Amendment. If they will not accept the exact words, I hope they may accept something similar.

LORD HAWKE

As one who is very partial to water and drinks quite a lot, perhaps more than some of your Lordships, I venture to say a few words on this particular Amendment. I have been casting my mind about to think of the various places at which I draw supplies of water and, excepting my dining room, I regret to realise that every one of those carafes, faucets or other sources is within 20 feet of either a W.C. or a urinal. I have just been out and paced the distance at one of my normal sources in your Lordships' House, and I find it is exactly four yards, four paces. I frequently have a draught of water before my lunch at one of the better known West End clubs, and there the distance, I venture to think, speaking from memory, is more like six feet. At a large modern building round the corner, Church House, the distance is, from memory, approximately nine feet.

Although I quite appreciate the point of the noble Lord in trying to make some sort of regulation, because he obviously wants to avoid too much close entanglement between the drinking tap and the sanitary conveniences, I think it is rather impracticable because the question of plumbing and the run of the pipes, and so on, arises. Providing there is a glass with which people can drink from the ordinary cold tap, I think in a small office, at any rate, that is quite reasonable. Big offices very often have a suitable arrangement, perhaps with cardboard cups and a special cool supply, as in American offices. But this proposal of a distance of 20 feet I believe is utterly and completely impracticable, and I do not really know that any distance could be laid down which would satisfy the hygienic desires of the noble Lord which at the same time is reasonably practicable, because circumstances vary so enormously. Is the 20 feet to be measured round corners or in a straight line? Personally, I should have thought that one foot away, provided the distance was through a wall, was a better proposition from the noble Lord's point of view than 20 feet in a straight line across an open space.

LORD BURDEN

As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, we might look at the water which is supplied in your Lordships' rooms in relation to this particular clause. We might effect an improvement in that direction. That was not the point I wished to raise. This clause requires the provision in all premises to which the Bill applies of an adequate supply of wholesale drinking water.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Wholesome !

LORD BURDEN

I mean, wholesome. We should not like to drink it wholesale, I agree. If the supply is not piped it must be contained in suitable vessels and renewed daily. Where the water is not delivered in the form of a jet from which persons cart conveniently drink there must be provided either drinking vessels, such as cardboard cartons, which can be discarded after use, or other types of drinking vessels such as glasses or cups together with facilities for rinsing them. I would submit that the vessels provided should be such as can be discarded after use, and then there is no risk of the spread of infection from person to person, as exists in the use of a communal vessel.

Perhaps, too, one might query the use of cold water as a satisfactory method of cleaning vessels which have been used. But where water is not piped and a supply is provided in a container, adequate cleansing of the vessel will be particularly difficult due to the need to conserve the supply. Therefore, I would suggest that, unless there are facilities for rinsing the drinking vessels in hot water, disposable containers only should be permitted. I agree that that is probably a new point, and one of which I had not advised the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. But perhaps he will have the point looked at to see whether anything can be done to meet it.

6.40 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

I have considerable sympathy with the object of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in putting down this Amendment, because obviously it is pleasanter for all concerned, even in your Lordships' House, if the supply of drinking water is situated outside the lavatory. But I am afraid I must agree with my noble friend Lord Hawke that it would be impracticable to ensure this in this way. I invite your Lordships to consider the tens of thousands of small premises, many of them in shared buildings, where the re-siting of a tap might lead to all sorts of complications about accessibility in relation to some other tenant's premises. That is one of the points that my noble friend made, I think. Certainly it might put owners or occupiers to quite considerable expense in the larger buildings, and I am doubtful whether we should be justified in doing that unless a real threat to health were involved. That, I think, would be the main consideration.

I should have thought that in modern buildings, where the lavatories are well ventilated, there is no necessarily serious objection to putting the tap supplying the water in the lavatory. I must draw attention, as indeed Lord Burden did, to the fact that Clause 11(1) says that there must be "an adequate supply of wholesome drinking water." By a slip of the tongue the noble Lord, Lord Burden, spoke of "wholesale" water, but he further said that he thought we should not like to drink wholesale water. My immediate reaction was that we should all rather like to drink wholesale whisky, whether it had water with it or not.

One might also draw attention to Clause 11(2) which says: Where a supply of water provided…is not piped, it must be contained in suitable vessels and must be renewed at least daily; and all practicable steps must he taken to preserve it and the vessels in which it is contained from contamination". Those are, I should have thought, fairly rigorous requirements. Perhaps your Lordships would also be good enough to look at Clause 9(2). There you will see that "conveniences"—which, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, means "sanitary conveniences"— provided in pursuance of the foregoing subsection shall be kept clean and properly maintained and effective provision shall be made for lighting and ventilating them. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, will feel that his intention is already pretty well covered in the Bill and that he will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

I understand the difficulty in this matter, but I think there is undoubted wisdom in the Amendment. In fact, this is one of the only clauses where the Minister has no powers of regulation. I have seen some of these taps which are alleged to provide drinking water, sometimes close to urinals, sometimes in places where, from the height point of view, they could perhaps be better sited. I wonder whether the Government, if they cannot accept the Amendment this evening, would consider, between now and the next stage, inserting power for the Minister to make regulations should be feel this to be necessary, perhaps in regard to siting or, in some cases, the necessity for placing drinking water taps a reasonable distance from urinals.

LORD BURDEN

Following that plea from my noble friend Lord Shepherd, if the Minister is prepared to consider that point I hope he will also consider what I ventured to suggest—namely, the use of disposable vessels. That point could be covered in regulations if they are adopted for this particular clause.

LORD CARRINGTON

The last thing that any of us on this side wants is to be less than encouraging when the noble Lord has a perfectly valid point. But there is a difficulty here. I think we all know this difficulty; if only we think about this House and the situation of the carafes of water and so on. I think that what is really important here, and what the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is worried about, is that the water should be drinkable and the surroundings clean and decent. Where you drink may not be a matter of importance; you can carry water away. But what is important is that the water should be clean, and that the place where the water is should be clean. And I think that is already covered under the Bill.

As my noble friend behind me has said, Clause 9(2) stipulates that the lavatories must be kept clean. That is an obligation on the owner of the building and on the employer. Then under Clause 11 the water must be "wholesome"; it must be renewed at least daily, and so on. I entirely agree with what noble Lords opposite have said: I think they are perfectly right. But I repeat that what is really important is that the water should be clean and wholesome, and that the place should be clean and wholesome. And, as I say, I think this is adequately covered under the Bill.

LORD SHEPHERD

I would ask the noble Lord to consider this matter again between now and the next stage. He is quite clear that the toilet and sanitary facilities have to be kept clean, but the noble Lord knows well that in some offices you may have 2, 200, 250—and maybe more—persons of one sex or the other using the lavatory facilities during the day. The place may be absolutely spick and span, spotless, in the morning when the staff come on duty. But perhaps by midday when these facilities have been used by all the staff, they are far from being in the clean state that we should expect under this Bill—certainly if it is said that drinking water can be taken from that area. But it would be unreasonable to say to the employer "Because you have 250 people in your office, you have got to employ somebody in your lavatory to see that the place is maintained in accordance with the standard set in the early morning". I shall not press the noble Lord, and I am sure that my noble friend will not do so. But would he please look at this matter between now and the next stage?

LORD CARRINGTON

I appreciate what the noble Lord is saying, and I think (although I do not know) that in the case of big offices it would probably be possible, if it were thought desirable, to do these things. But I am thinking of the smaller premises, where the difficulty applies more than anywhere else. Twenty feet is quite a long way, and any other words which I can think of in the Bill would be quite difficult of application—certainly in this House. But, of course, I will consider the point.

LORD SHEPHERD

The point I had in mind was whether the Minister should have power to make regulations in regard to this matter.

6.49 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN

I must say that the reply has been most unsatisfactory. Here we are dealing with a Bill which is supposed to be a charter for the health of office and shop workers. It is a charter to improve he bad conditions which exist and have been existing for 20 or 30 years. I will agree that so long as the water is within the tap it is wholesome; there is no possibility of contamination in that respect. But if noble Lords opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, think that the best place from which to supply wholesome water is a tap in close proximity to a urinal, often only two feet six inches from the ground, I do not think that is true.

Now I will declare an interest—perhaps I ought to have declared my interest at the start. This point has been put to me—it is not something of my own thinking—by those who have to operate this Bill. I was going to say for my sins, but perhaps it is for my virtues, I am the honorary president of the Institute of Shoos Acts Administration. Those who are going to operate this Bill, when it is an Act, have pointed out this fallacy in the Bill and have asked me to put this Amendment down, in order to make the operation of the Act by them easier. All that noble Lords opposite can say is that the conditions are so good at the moment that we need not do anything about them. Well, this is just not true.

LORD HAWKE

I think it is not fair to say that. We say the Amendment is crazy because it leaves out of account the fact that water might be one foot away, through a thick wall.

LORD LINDGREN

It is not as crazy as the noble Lord in his exploits in search of water. I have been in search of some things, but have never gone to that length to get water. These are the people who have to operate the Act—they are not like the noble Lord, dealing with his own home, but are dealing with the lives and welfare of men and women employed in shops and offices, the conditions in some of which are very bad indeed. So far as I can see, noble Lords opposite are not even prepared to remedy the bad conditions.

I am not going to be tied to the distance of 20 feet. If I had my way, the supply of water would be entirely outside and not be anywhere near these places. This can be done. All the noble Lords opposite are concerned about, when it comes to the health and welfare of the worker, is the question of cost. They never raise the point as to the efficiency of the individual and what he has to put up with. To them it is always the cost and the difficulty of providing it. It is about time we got away from the question of cost and saw to it that if water is necessary for persons to drink, it is pure and wholesome and is provided for them in a place where it cannot get contaminated. As the noble Lord is not prepared to accept the Amendment or make any step towards it, I will not press it to a Division, but I certainly will not withdraw it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD MILVERTON moved to add to subsection (1): and the places at which water is accessible to persons so employed shall be clearly marked so as to indicate whether or not the water at any such place is wholesome drinking water".

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to indicate in respect of any taps or other means of water supply whether the supply is, or is not, of wholesome drinking water. The Amendment is analogous to Section 57 (2) of the Factories Act, 1961, though the Amendment departs from that subsection in that it does not specify that drinking water shall necessarily be labelled as such, and allows the alternative of the marking of a supply as not suitable for drinking. Which course should be adopted can be determined by what is most practicable in any particular case. I understand that the Ministry of Labour do not regard this Amendment as necessary, and distinguish the position from that under the Factories Act on the grounds that there are often pipes in factories containing dangerous liquids, and grave injury might result if a mistake were made. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is most desirable to indicate whether water is fit for drinking—a supply from a storage tank is not normally so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD CARRINGTON

It seems that I was unable to convince noble Lords opposite last time of the Government's rightness. On this occasion I am afraid my noble friend has been unable to convince me of his case. Even in a building of moderate size there are a great number of taps from which wholesome drinking water can be drawn, and I believe that it would be a large job indeed to have all these marked. Before we ask employers to undertake this sort of task, particularly if it is unnecessary, as I believe it is in this case, we should be sure that there was a risk that people might drink something dangerous, poisonous or noxious in mistake for water.

It is perfectly true, as my noble friend has said, that by Section 57(2) of the Factories Act the supply of drinking water must he marked "Drinking Water"—not everywhere, but only where the, district inspector so directs; there is no general provision. The noble Lord has anticipated one of my arguments. The conditions in factories are in this case—hope noble Lords opposite will agree with this—quite different from those in offices. There obviously can be large numbers of pipes in factories carrying all sorts of liquids, some dangerous, and some may be difficult to distinguish from pipes carrying water. I do not think that could happen in premises with which this Bill deals. I hope my noble frind will think it unnecessary to add yet another burden on employers.

LORD MILVERTON

I am much impressed by the appeal not to add another burden on an already overburdened Government, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD AIREDALE

I am sorry to disappoint the First Lord by intervening again, but I want to draw his attention to the last two lines on page 8, subsection (3)(b), which describe the washing up facilities required for washing drinking tumblers. We now know, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that the water for drinking has to be wholesome drinking water, as provided by subsection (1); but be it noted that the washing-up water described in subsection (3)(b) is not described as "wholesome" drinking water. It is, however, described as "drinking water", and I suppose that means cold water. I know that they wash up tumblers in unwholesome cold water on Epsom Downs on Derby Day, but I should not have thought this was desirable for offices as a regular practice. I should have thought that the average proprietor of office accommodation might think that hot water and a sink were the proper arrangements. What worries me is that, supposing a sink and hot water were to be provided for washing up, under this subsection the proprietor would still also have to provide facilities for rinsing the glasses in drinking water. I cannot see the sense of that. Perhaps that point could be looked at.

Then, when one comes to subsection (4), one finds it is fifteen lines long and I do not find it very easy to understand. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, talked about the verbal obscurity of an earlier clause. I wonder what the noble Lord thinks about subsection (4). I believe the message of subsection (4) is that if one provides drinking water for the customers it will do for the staff as well. But perhaps I am wrong about that interpretation, because I should have thought that that was covered by subsection (1) in any event. I am wondering whether there is a class of people who need the protection of subsection (4). If not, could we not leave out subsection (4) and get rid of fifteen lines of rather difficult English?

LORD CARRINGTON

I hope the noble Lord opposite does not think that I was complaining about his intervention on the previous occasion. I was very much welcoming an intervention of such a constructive nature from noble Lords who sit on those Benches. I must confess that I did not quite understand what his first point was. I did not quite understand whether he was complaining that the regulations were too severe, or complaining that they were not severe enough. We have so much from each side of the House on these matters that I am sometimes a little bewildered. Most of my noble friends behind me complain that the regulations are too severe; the Labour Party complain that they are not severe enough; and where the Liberal Party stand in the matter, I am not sure. If it is a point of considerable importance I will most certainly look at it, but I did not quite get what the noble Lord was saying. As to his second point, I am quite sure that subsection (4) is necessary. I cannot imagine anyone drafting something like that if it were not necessary.

LORD AIREDALE

In a word, my first point was that I was really seeking to underline what I think the noble Lord, Lord Burden, had said earlier: that facilities for rinsing drinking tumblers in drinking water—which I take to be cold water, because I cannot drink hot water—was not very hygienic, and that it was much better if proprietors provided sinks arid hot water. If they did, I only hoped that they would not also have to provide facilities for rinsing in drinking water.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13—[Sitting facilities]:

LORD LINDGREN moved to add after subsection (2): ( ) Such seats to be provided behind the counter, or in such other position within the selling area as may be exclusively available and suitable for their use.

The noble Lord said: Section 37(1) of the Shops Act 1950 has a similar provision to that set out in Clause 13(2) of the Bill, and it contains the words: … the employer shall provide seats behind the counter, or in such other position as may be suitable for the purpose". It has been found from experience by those who are operating the existing Shops Act that the words "or in such other position" provide a weakness in the present Act which they have to administer. This Amendment is an attempt by the Institute of Shops Act Administration to try to improve the facilities which will be available to those operating in shops.

May I make it quite clear that, even if the clause is accepted as it is now in the Bill, the opportunities for the protection of staff and the facilities for staff will be worse than under the existing Shops Act regulations? But even the existing Shops Act regulations have not been found easy to operate or entirely satisfactory, where there is a determination or an inclination on the part of the employer to avoid the operation of the Shops Act. Therefore, this form of words is put forward in order that the seats shall be available and in a position in which the staff can use them, adjacent to the work which they have to do. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HAWKE

This Amendment appears to be a very sound one and one which, if practicable, would fulfil a long-felt want, because every one of us, in going into shops, must have seen the staff, when they were not employed, standing, when they could reasonably have been sitting. One knows, particularly, that the older people find the standing very hard, both on their feet and on their legs. I do not know whether my noble friend thinks the Amendment is practicable as drafted, but I suggest that something of the kind is necessary. I hope the noble Lords opposite will notice that, when they do produce an Amendment which is practicable and appears to have a useful purpose, we support it.

LORD SHEPHERD

We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I withdrew my Amendment to delete subsection (2) of this clause in order to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend, but I am not quite sure even now whether this Amendment goes far enough. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, will remember that the other evening I showed him the outline of a type of modern store in which there are a number of counters often manned by one person—sometimes a young girl. If Clause 13(2) continues in the Bill as it now stands, and it requires a minimum—and, as I said to the noble Lord, these minima often become the maxima standards—of only 1 to 3, this might well mean that if a seat was not provided at the counter in some of the big stores, a girl, to sit down during the course of her work, might well have to leave her counter unattended, subject perhaps to shoplifters—because, as the noble Lord knows, shops encourage people to go in, even if they do not buy. Unless you see in that type of establishment, where there is a girl isolated behind a counter, that she has her individual seat, she will never get the opportunity to sit down. The crux of the matter is that subsection (3) of this clause clearly indicates that the person would normally be allowed to sit down so long as it did not interfere with her work.

A comment was made on a previous Amendment about people dodging work. Obviously, if a girl left her counter in order to sit down that would interfere with her work. In the large type of store the ratio of 1 to 3 will obviously not be sufficient, but according to the clause that is all that needs to be provided. Therefore, we may have a situation in which a girl may not be able to sit down for considerable periods, in spite of the fact that there are no customers at her counter. I would again point out that this is another of the clauses under which the Minister has no powers of regulation, so we have no flexibility in it. Self-service stores and the larger stores are increasing, and it would seem to me that there is going to be a very special problem, and very special hardship, if we stick to this ratio of 1 to 3, unless there is some flexibility for the Minister to make an order. Perhaps it would meet the point if my noble friend's Amendment said that seats shall be provided behind each counter. But I do not believe that Clause 13(2) is good enough to meet the modern trend in stores.

LORD CARRINGTON

I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friend behind me, have made out an interesting case for this Amendment. But there are certainly difficulties in the Amendment as it stands on the Marshalled List. I do not think it would work. For instance, there are supermarkets where people do not sit down, and I think it would be very difficult in the large stores to provide seats behind every counter.

LORD SHEPHERD

No

LORD CARRINGTON

I think it would, if one considers the lay-out. Nevertheless, I think the noble Lord has a point.

LORD LINDGREN

May I interrupt the noble Lord?

LORD CARRINGTON

May I just finish, because I hope that in the end I may be able to satisfy the noble Lord? I am not sure if I shall be able to, but I shall try. If your Lordships will look halfway down Clause 13(2) you will see that it says: … in the course of their work, reasonable opportunities for sitting without detriment to it the provision for their use of a number of seats … ". I have a feeling that those words "for their use" provide a very considerable safeguard, because whatever the ratio, if they were not for their use, or if it were not possible to sit on them, it would not be considered under this Bill that the facilities were reasonable. The noble Lord shakes his head. I should like to go away and think about this. I do not think this Amendment will do, but I should like to go away and think out whether there is a way of meeting at least some of the noble Lord's points; and if he will withdraw this Amendment I will see what I can do at the next stage of the Bill.

LORD HAWKE

I suspected there might be practical difficulties about the Amendment set down by noble Lords opposite, but I believe there is a little more in this than my noble friend thinks. If he goes around particularly the department stores, I think he will find on the whole that the assistants there rarely appear to be sitting down, even when they are not serving customers. I believe that to be owing to the fact that either they have not got seats or their seats are in the wrong places. This clause says there should be a ratio of one to three, which I should have thought, on the face of it, was too low a ratio. It would be much more satisfactory if each assistant were entitled to a stool of her own.

LORD CARRINGTON

There may be something in that, but the ratio of one to three was in the Shops Act. This has been lifted straight from the Shops Act.

LORD LINDGREN

We are glad that the noble Lord is coming a little more towards us; we very much appreciate it.

In view of his offer to consider this point, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.12 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (3), after "work" to insert: and he shall in the prescribed manner give notice informing the employed persons that they are intended to do so

The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has just said that something was "lifted clean out of the Shops Act"—not a bad phrase. My difficulty, and what I am, trying to do by this Amendment, is to point out that, in respect of the matter which is dealt with by this Amendment, the Government have not lifted something out of the Shops Act cleanly enough. This Clause 13 extends the provisions of Section 37 of the Shops Act. That section made provision for seats for female shop workers, and this Bill extends it to all persons employed in offices, shops or railway premises. Section 37 of the 1950 Shops Act is to be repealed by this Bill, and subsection (2) of that section provides: It shall be the duty of the occupier of the shop to permit the female shop assistants to make use of such seats whenever the use thereof does not interfere with their work, and the occupiers shall in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed form give notice informing the shop assistants that they are intended to do so.

In the adaptation of that section of the Shops Act for the purpose of this Bill, the duty placed on the owner of giving notice that the seats are intended to be used has been left out. We feel that the words contained in the Shops Act, 1950, really had some meaning, and that, with the other words that have been lifted out of the Shops Act, 1950, they ought to have been included in this Bill. We wonder why they were left out. They, surely, could have occasioned no difficulty for occupiers of shops, and they strengthen the employees' position by making it clear to them what the Shops Act intended. I do not believe it was the intention of the Government not to make clear to the employees that they are intended to use these seats.

What we are suggesting is that the Government, by not including these words, have weakened the position of the female shop workers. It leaves their position such that they will be expected to have a knowledge of this Bill if they are going to try to establish their rights, and that is what rather worries us. We cannot expect the shop assistants about whom we are talking now to have a knowledge of this Bill, and we think that they ought to have the same as they had under the Shops Act—a notice which will tell them they are supposed to use these seats. In the circumstances, we think this is a wholly reasonable Amendment, not moved for any purpose of obstruction or anything of that sort, and we feel that the Government ought to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 18, after ("work") insert ("and he shall in the prescribed manner give notice informing the employed persons that they are intended to do so").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD HAWKE

Here, again, this is part of the same story. One hears rumours sometimes that the reason why seats are not used is because the lower management frowns on their use. If there is a notice up, the person who wishes to sit down has an absolute, clear case for sitting down if he or she is not working. I feel that, whether the Amendment is in the right form or not, the principle is sound; and I believe that if my noble friend could see the dropped arches, the varicose veins, and so on, which occur in shop assistants through this constant standing, he would be very sympathetic.

LORD DENHAM

I hope I can satisfy both the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and my noble friend Lord Hawke. The omission of these words was not an over-sight but was done deliberately because of a general provision in Clause 50 of the Bill, which has no counterpart in the Shops Act. Clause 50 is intended to ensure that employees are informed not only of the effect of Clause 13 but of all the provisions of the Bill and of any regulations affecting their place of work. This is to be achieved in one of two ways: by the posting in the premises of abstracts of the relevant parts of the Bill and of any regulations; or, alternatively, by the issue of explanatory books or leaflets which will be prepared under the Minister's auspices. Employers will be obliged to adopt one of these methods to inform their employees of the provisions of the Bill. It was because of this general requirement that the words the noble Lord would have us insert were originally omitted; and having heard my explanation, I hope he will feel that his Amendment is unnecessary.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am sure my noble friend will be very pleased to hear that. I think the noble Lord said that it was the intention, perhaps, to put up abstracts of this Bill as notices. All I can say is, "God forbid ! ", because how any individual who has not had some experience of reading the work of Parliamentary draftsmen can comprehend some of the important parts of this Bill is beyond my understanding. Therefore I hope there will be no question of putting up abstracts. Please put it in plain, good English, so that the English or the Scots can understand it.

LORD DENHAM

Yes, I can give the noble Lord that assurance.

LORD CHAMPION

We have been talking about the Gowers Report. If it is put in good, Sir Ernest Gowers language, I am sure it will be understandable. I clearly have not done quite so much homework on this Bill as I thought I had. The point has been covered, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Eating facilities]:

7.18 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved to leave out "shop premises" and insert "premises to which this section applies". The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be convenient if I dealt with Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 together. Your Lordships will notice that Clause 15 provides that where persons are employed to work in shop premises and eat meals, suitable and sufficient facilities for eating meals are to be provided. There is no number laid down—no limitation, no minimum, no maximum. My Amendment seeks to extend this provision to offices where twenty or more are employed. Your Lordships may ask why the figure twenty was selected. I chose that figure because it appears in Clause 29, which deals with fire regulations. I am, of course, aware, as are all noble Lords, that many firms provide excellent canteen facilities for their office staff, and that other firms also supplement salaries by means of luncheon vouchers. No one would wish to interfere with those admirable arrangements, but it seems reasonable to me that if office staff are compelled to eat meals on the premises, for one reason or the other, facilities similar to those described or prescribed for office workers should be available. It is only asking for firms who do not provide any facilities to conform with those standards which are being laid down for shop workers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 35, leave out ("shop premises") and insert ("premises to which this section applies").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD CARRINGTON

In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has just said, we all want to improve conditions and facilities for office workers as well as shop workers: there is no dispute about that. But I beg leave to doubt whether what the noble Lord has in mind would do this—whether the extension of these facilities to office workers would achieve what he is setting out to do. I am frightened that it might work in precisely the opposite direction, and for this reason—because it would lead to the withdrawal of concessions which already exist; and that is the last thing we should want to do. It might work like this. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this point. It is the custom, I understand, for people in offices—and I have seen them—to eat sandwiches at their desks. Some employers would look at the clause as amended by the noble Lord opposite and might reason in this way: "I have hither-to let my employees eat sandwiches at their desks. Now I shall have to provide suitable and sufficient facilities for them to do so. I have not the space. I do not want the expense of doing it. I have not the money and I had better stop the practice of allowing them to eat in the office building itself." In this way the Amendment would work considerably to the disadvantage of office employees.

In my view it does not make any difference how many office employees are in in the premises; permission to eat lunch at desks might still be withdrawn. The clause does not, however, make any new provision for shops, because it only repeats Section 38(5) of the Shops Act, 1950. In any case, shop assistants do not usually eat their sandwiches in full view of the public; it is customary to permit them to use some other part of the shop out of the public view. For those reasons—not because I am opposed to the noble Lord's Amendment on principle, but because I think it might have precisely the opposite effect—I would ask him to withdraw it.

LORD BURDEN

I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. In some instances that may apply. Whether it is a good thing or not for office staff to eat sandwiches at the desks at which they are working I will not debate with him; but it is probably a questionable practice. In any case I do not feel I can withdraw my Amendment; but I will not press it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD LINDGREN moved, to leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new clause:

Eating facilities ." Where persons employed to work in or about the business carried on in shop premises eat meals there suitable and sufficient facilities for eating them shall be provided and maintained.

The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that the Government want to improve things so far as conditions for office workers and shop workers are concerned. He then went on to say that this clause is a repeat of Clause 38(5) of the Shops Act, 1950. For the benefit of the noble Lord, I will read that subsection because I am going to contend that the present clause is nowhere near as effective on behalf of the shop workers as the existing provisions of that subsection. If I am wrong, this only strengthens the point of view which is put forward by my noble friend Lord Shepherd in regard to the difficulties people have with Acts of Parliament. If those of us who for 20-odd years have been rummaging around Acts of Parliament cannot notice a difference in the wording, then what about the shop assistant of 15 or 16 years of age having her rights after reading the Act?

The subsection says: Where persons employed about the business of a shop take any meals in the shop, there shall be provided and maintained suitable and sufficient facilities for the taking of those meals.

Now we turn to the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, says is a repetition of that clause. That reads: Where persons employed to work in shop premises eat meals there, suitable and sufficient facilities for eating them shall be provided.

I would contend that in two respects, right away, the new clause is deficient as compared with the one in the Shops Act, 1950. First, while requiring facilities to be provided, it does not require them to be maintained. That is required in Section 38(5) of the Shops Act, 1950; and I have sufficient experience with some employers to know that if they are not required to maintain them, provision is there and it can become derelict.

Second, the new clause is not dealing with those working in and about shops. As I read Section 38(5) of the Shops Act, 1950, it is true that shop assistants are covered; but what about the boy working about the shop who delivers the goods? He is as much entitled to his mead. He was covered under the Shops Act; and I think this case ought to be provided for. Also, do not forget—and I ought to have mentioned this—that Section 38(5) of the Shops Act, 1950, is being repealed by this Act; so this right now goes, if we put in this new clause. Under the Shops Act, too, there is a requirement for the provision of at least three-quarters of an hour for persons to eat meals on the premises. If they do not get three-quarters of an hour then they must be given one hour for eating a meal outside. The provision I suggest makes the position satisfactory from the point of view of the shop workers, because it brings about at least a status quo so far as their existing privileges are concerned. I submit that the present suggestion under Clause 15 undermines the conditions as they now exist. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 15, and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD CARRINGTON

I am confident that I can satisfy the noble Lord on this point. I apologise if my answer is complicated: I agree that Acts of Parliament are difficult to interpret or to find one's way about in. But I really think that this one is all right. The new clause which he has put forward follows fairly closely the corresponding section in the Shops Act, 1950, Section 38(5). In that Act the words employed about the business of a shop are defined in subsections (9) and (10) of Section 38. This Bill is framed differently and the word "employed" is defined in the interpretation clause, Clause 88, as employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship". If, therefore, a person is employed under a contract of service, he is covered by the Bill whether he actually works hi the shop or about the business of the shop. The different wording will not therefore result in the effect which the noble Lord feared. There will be no restriction of the facilities available. A van-driver, for example, who visited a shop intermittently to collect goods for delivery, would (to use the phraseology in Clause 15) be employed to work in shop premises even though most of his time would be spent away from the shop. Any employee who carries out any work at all in the shop premises is covered by the wording of the clause. So, legally, that is perfectly all right.

It is true, as the noble Lord opposite said, that the word "maintained" is left out after the word "provided". I do not believe that these words provide any additional protection, although it is true that they appear in the Shops Act. An occupier has to provide sufficient and suitable facilities for eating meals. If his facilities take the shape of a table and chairs, which fall into disrepair, then suitable facilities are no longer being provided. The obligation to provide suitable facilities is a continuing one, and the addition of the words proposed is therefore considered by the draftsmen to be unnecessary. I hope that on this point—a very proper point, if I may say so—about which the noble Lord was worried, I have satisfied him. The points he made are covered by the Bill, and I hope that he will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

We are placed in a real difficulty, because earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in defending an Amendment against the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, quoted the words of the Factories Act and said that if we were going to change the wording in this Bill it would tend to throw doubt on the wording of the Factories Act; and we dealt with the matter on that basis. People have been operating the Shops Act for many years and now the whole range of language is being changed. Employers and employees, and all those operating the existing Act have got used to the words and meanings in it; now this Bill comes along with totally new words, and it looks to them as if there has been a change of meaning. That is certainly how it will look to the shop assistant and the shopkeeper.

For instance, Section 5 of the Shops Act says: There shall be provided and maintained suitable and sufficient facilities … This Bill drops the word "maintained" but retains "suitable and sufficient". It is all most confusing. I do not know whether an explanatory memorandum will be sent to the chambers of trade, but those of us who have had some experience of the working of Acts of Parliament know how difficult it is for the ordinary shopkeeper in Burslem-on-Slosh to operate these Acts, and I think that some-thing ought to be done to give some guidance about the changes, the reasons for them and where there are improvements: because otherwise it may be difficult for people to find them.

LORD CARRINGTON

The noble Lord is very difficult to satisfy. I have assured him that this is covered under the Bill, and I hope that he will accept my explanation of how it is covered. He drew a dramatic picture of the poor shopkeeper roaming through this Bill to find the differences between it and the Shops Act. With great respect, I think that this is very unlikely. If it were so, I think that he should also take the trouble to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of your Lordships' House and find out what the explanation is.

LORD LINDGREN

I do not want to be difficult and I gladly withdraw the Amendment. But earlier we were told that extracts from this Bill, when it becomes an Act, were to be posted at shops and offices in order that employees can know their position. The employees will see the difficulty. But in view of the late hour and other calls of nature at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.]

Clause 16 [Floors, passages and stairs]:

LORD SHEPHERD moved, in sub-section (1), after "construction" to insert "with a permanent non-slip surface." The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving Amendment No. 43, I speak also to No. 44 because it is very much the same point. The clause requires that floors shall be constructed of sound construction. Those are the words that appear in the Factories Act, and no doubt for a factory they are correct. But I wonder whether they go far enough in regard to offices. I feel that we should try to put into this Bill a provision that office floors should be so constructed that they have a permanent non-slip surface.

I appreciate that some of the older offices may have difficulty in conforming to this standard, and therefore I do not propose to press this Amendment, but to bring it up again, perhaps on the Report Stage, so that it shall refer to new offices; in other wards, that new offices shall have floors with a permanent non-slip surface. This seems to me essential, because there are a number of minor accidents, which can put people out of work for a period, due to a slippery surface. My intention, if the Government could give me some indication whether they are sympathetic to the idea, is to put down an Amendment to ensure that the floors in new offices will be so constructed as to have a non-slip surface.

With regard to Amendment No. 44, this is a matter that. I raised on Second Reading. I find that many new buildings are being constructed—and quite rightly so—with a considerable amount of window space. My attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of these buildings are provided with windows of a considerable size, some of 4' 6" to 5' square, which can be opened fully. In other words, in some of these buildings it would be possible for a whole side of the building to be completely open. I have found also in some of these buildings (and I am speaking of those in which my own office is located) that the windowsill is a mere 2' 6" from the floor. When these windows are wide open at a considerable height there is some danger (I do not put it higher than that) that persons may slip, or they may be fooling around and fall out of the window. In some places these windows are so wide that people might even believe there is no window there at all.

I would suggest to the Government that a provision should be written into this Bill that, where windows are of the description I have given, they should be so constructed or guarded, particularly in buildings of many floors, that a person at least has a hand grip to prevent him from falling out of the building. This type of office building will continue, and is to be welcomed; but at the moment I do not think that the building requirements are such as to be capable of dealing with this problem. Therefore, while we are dealing with offices, it seems to me that it would not be remiss, particularly when dealing with Clause 16, which has a good deal to do with safety, to write such a provision into the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 40, after ("construction") insert ("with a permanent non-slip surface").—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD HAWKE

In these matters what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I wonder whether at the next stage of the Bill Her Majesty's Government would care to introduce some provision that the staff in these offices should be prohibited from wearing stiletto heels: because, as everybody knows, stiletto heels are the complete ruination of any form of floor that man has hitherto devised. If we are going to say that the stairs, steps, passages and gangways shall be of sound construction, I think it would be entirely wrong if we did not also have some provision that that sound construction should not be destroyed because women continue to wear this ridiculous form of foot gear.

8.43 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

I have every sympathy with what my noble friend has said about the damage which can be done by stiletto heels. I feel quite strongly about the visible damage done to the floors of my own house. But for the purpose of the two Amendments that we are now considering, the question is whether the wearing of stiletto heels makes it more likely that people will slip on the floor, or more likely that they will fall out of windows. I think the answer in both cases is probably, No.

LORD HAWKE

May I interrupt for one moment? If the staff continue to wear stiletto heels, it will be quite impossible to have a floor that is of sound construction and properly maintained, unless it is repaired almost daily.

LORD NEWTON

It depends what we mean by "properly maintained". In the first Amendment, the noble Lord is proposing a general provision that all floors, steps, passages and gangways should have a permanent non-slip surface. This would involve owners and occupiers in considerable expense. After all, in many of the premises covered by the Bill, the surface of the floor is quite irrelevant (the noble Lord can have a go in a moment; I am referring to the words of his Amendment): because the floor will be covered by linoleum, carpet or some other material.

LORD SHACKLETON

In other words, non-slip.

LORD NEWTON

In his Amendment the noble Lord is suggesting, whether he realises it or not, that the surface of the floor which is completely covered presents a hazard, and that it ought to be composed of non-slip material, even though it is carpeted. I really cannot believe that the noble Lord thinks that, and I cannot altogether accept it. After all, many accidents, I think most accidents, are caused by slipping as a result of things left lying about on the stairs, like pieces of soap; and that sort of hazard is already taken care of in the Bill.

As regards his second Amendment, No. 44, again, the noble Lord is proposing an extremely wide requirement, as I think he recognises. A large modern office building to-day may have hundreds of windows of more than 5 feet square some height from the ground, and I cannot believe that it is reasonable to apply to them an absolutely universal requirement that they should be guarded in such a way as to prevent people from falling out, or to make it difficult for them to fall out. If in any particular case there is a risk of people's accidentally falling from windows, I think the best approach to this problem would be to try to find a sensible solution by consultation between all the bodies interested and concerned.

LORD SHACKLETON

I think the noble Lord has really conceded my noble friend's point about non-slip surfaces, and if the Government would now be prepared to give an undertaking that they will table an Amendment the effect of which will be to require sound construction with a floor covering of a non-slip nature, we shall be all right. I do not think he should attack this Amendment merely on a technicality; and I am not even sure that the noble Lord is right to say that a floor which is covered with a permanent non-slip surface must have a non-slip surface under the covering. If he is right there, it would be very easy to put right. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for. It is now standard practice in a large number of new buildings. I agree that stiletto heels are a problem, but even then there are certain types of floor coverings which withstand these heels, at least for a reasonable period. I really do not see why we cannot have this.

Again, I would suggest to the noble Lord that it may well be that some sort of delay could be applied—and perhaps it is in this clause—in respect of existing buildings, and that we should merely require that new buildings at the time of the passing of the Act shall be of this nature. This matter is really not unimportant. There are quite a number of accidents in which people slip. It is unusual to leave soap on the stairs of a large new building, but if it does happen it would obviously involve questions of negligence. A serious breach of statutory obligation would not be the only test. But what we are saying is that these floors should be non-slip, and these can be, and are, provided in modern buildings. I think it ought to be a statutory requirement.

LORD NEWTON

This is done, and can be done, but we are not talking only about new buildings, but all build ings, and the Amendment does not refer only to new buildings. Quite apart from that, I think it is an unnecessary requirement to impose. As I say, it would cost a lot of money, and where on earth are we going to stop? Noble Lords are really saying that there is this serious risk in shops and offices of people falling down all the time because floors are slippery. They will be saying next that there ought to be a requirement in the Bill that all furniture in shops and offices should have no sharp corners, that they should not be rectangular but round, because of the danger that people might walk into them and damage themselves by so doing. If that is so, where are we going to stop? One has to draw the line some-where, and I think it should be drawn on the wrong side of these two Amendments.

LORD SHACKLETON

What worries me again about the noble Lord is that he does not realise these hazards exist. I know of cases where people have slipped and where they have successfully obtained damages under Common Law. There is, in any case, an obligation under Common Law for surfaces to be safe. What we are trying to do is to make it a statutory obligation. It is all very well for the noble Lord to laugh about this, but this is a factor that employers do take into account; and what we are trying to do here, as in the whole of the Bill—and this is what I think the Government want to do is to lay down standards and impose obligations so that those employers who are not so good will realise that they have a statutory obligation.

I shall really despair if the Government say that we cannot do everything. Obviously there are points where one draws the line, but this is an important one. I will say this to the noble Lord. This is certainly a point which has concerned me in my business capacity. Definite steps have had to be taken in the interests of the employees, but also because we should have been negligent if we had not done so. We are wanting to make it a statutory obligation. The noble Lord realises the difference between an action in Common Law and a breach of a statutory obligation.

LORD NEWTON

Yes, I am perfectly well aware of that, and I am perfectly well aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, are trying to do in getting me to accept these Amendments. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has recognised—I think this is the first time that any noble Lord has recognised this so far—that the line has to be drawn somewhere. It is always a matter of opinion where you draw the line, and we differ on this occasion. And there we are; there is really nothing more to be said.

LORD SHEPHERD

We do not put these Amendments down frivolously. We are sitting here late in the evening in an honest endeavour to improve the Bill, and, we believe, the lot of workers. In this particular clause we are considering matters of safety. I appreciate the position of the three noble Lords opposite who are in charge of the Bill. They are not Ministers of the Department concerned. There is a limit to how far they can go in conceding a point unless the Ministry has already given them a latitude on some points. But even then the position requires that we have a reasoned reply, not necessarily one picking holes in the wording of an Amendment. We in this House have always recognised that the spirit, the intention, of an Amendment is more important, at least at this stage, than the mere words.

I will withdraw this Amendment. We have much to do. But I would ask the Minister if he would consider this matter again with his friends. I qualified my first remarks by saying I should have thought this could reasonably be said to apply to new offices. If new offices are being constructed as they are—one day, perhaps, all the old offices will have gone—I cannot see why we cannot require that, whenever new offices are built, they are of such a substance as to reduce the serious risk of injury, not only to the workers in the building but to visitors. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to consider this matter. Certainly it will be raised at another stage, and perhaps then we might have a more constructive reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 [Fencing of exposed parts of machinery]:

8.55 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (1) to insert: ( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, it shall be the duty of the employer, so far as reasonably practicabie, to ensure that any dangerous part of machinery is fenced so to prevent injury to any person in the premises through the ejection of materials or of parts of the machinery, or through clothing or tools, or any other things attached to or held by persons working in the premises, coming into contact with that part: Provided that, where the only risk of injury through the ejection of material is a risk of injury to the eyes, the requirements of the foregoing subsection shall be deemed to be complied with so far as that risk is concerned if suitable goggles or effective screens are provided to protect the eyes of persons who are subject to that risk

The noble Lord said: I must apologise if I speak a little longer than is normally acceptable at this late hour, but this is perhaps one of the most important Amendments on this Bill. I approach it with some trepidation, because I am entering the realms of law. This is a subject in which I am not trained, and I had hoped that a member of the Government with legal training, or one sitting in a legal capacity, could be here, because there are one or two points which I think need to be answered from a legal standpoint.

This Amendment was fully discussed on the Committee and Report stages in another place. It resulted from the initiative of my honourable friend the Member for Derby, North, who presented it in a particularly brilliant speech. On both occasions the Amendment was defeated, but I do not think the Government will disagree with me when I say that it was defeated, or a Division was called, not so much on the subject or the principle, but on the methods of obtaining the right result. This Amendment is of my own drafting, and again I would say to the Government, that I hope that their reply will not be directed to any imperfections that may appear in the draft.

I believe that the virtue of the Amendment lies in its clear intention. Why do I raise this subject to-night? I think it is due to the fact that, although it has been defeated in another place, it was the action of this House, sitting in its Judicial capacity, which upset the practice under the administration of the Factory Act, 1901, and an earlier Act, one which had been in being and giving protection to the workers for close on sixty-six years. The Committee may also ask why a matter which appears to relate to the Factories Act should be raised on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill? It is because to-day we are bringing into our offices new and modern machinery, some of which may present some danger. Certainly we have in our shops, and we keep thinking of, bacon-slicing machines, which have already caused a considerable number of accidents.

But the real reason why I am bringing this Amendment forward this evening is that the offending words of Clause 17(1) and (2) of this Bill are virtually the same as the words of the Factories Acts of 1961 and 1937. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, always likes to have statistics as to how many people are involved in the problem. I certainly have no figures as to the number of people who have been injured in shops and offices due to pieces of machinery flying out. As I understand it, these accidents are not notifiable. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that during 1960 2,500 accidents in factories were notified, and all were attributable to articles and pieces of machinery flying out. Half of these accidents affected the eye, perhaps the most vulnerable part of one's body. In fact, the Minister said in another place on December 20, 1962, that a substantial number of these accidents to eyes could have been prevented if Section 14 of the Factories Act had been complied with by the employer.

Before coming to the present position of the law, and its interpretation by your Lordships' House, I think I should explain the position as it prevailed for sixty-six years before 1937. The first major Act was that passed in 1878. This was followed by a Bill, which became an Act in 1901. The section with which I am mainly concerned this evening is Section 10(1)(c), which said: All dangerous parts of machinery and every part of the mill gear must be either securely fenced or be in such a position or of such construction as to be equally safe to every person employed or working in the factory as it would be if it was securely fenced. I would repeat the words "equally safe to every person employed or working in the factory". As I understand it, the 1901 Act gave absolute protection to an employee in his work; in fact, this was confirmed by a court decision in 1897. I see the noble Viscount who leads the House is now here, and no doubt he will remember, in his legal capacity, the case of Hindle v. Birtwistle, which was a case in which a shuttle flew out of a loom and struck a weaver. The court held that the weaver was entitled to recover damages for a breach of the Factories Act, and their decision showed clearly that the protection included protection against pieces of machinery flying out. This classic case, as I understand it, resulted in thousands of cases being settled both in and out of court. It was a clear interpretation of the law of the day and it gave, apart from negligence, absolute protection to the worker and to those who might be employed in the factory.

Thirty-six years later, in 1937, a new Factories Bill was brought before Parliament mainly for purposes of consolidation, but it did bring about a major change in the section which I have just quoted. The second paragraph of that section, which became Section 14(1), used these words: Provided that, in so far as the safety of a dangerous part of any machinery cannot by reason of the nature of the operation be secured by means of a fixed guard, the requirement of this subsection shall be deemed to have been complied with if a device is provided"— and these are the important words— which automatically prevents the operator from coming into contact with that part. I have looked up Hansard of your Lordships' House, and have carefully read the debate, and I can say that the Minister, when he introduced the Bill, did not draw the attention of the House to that section. He spoke of others, but did not refer to that specific one; nor, in fact, did any other noble Lord. In Committee it was not even subjected to debate. It may be that in 1937 the House did not give the same scrutiny to legislation as we do to-day, about which some complain.

But the fact is that here was a case where there was a major amendment to the law to which the attention of the House was not drawn and which Members of the House did not appreciate. I question whether, in fact, the Government of the day intended any change to the law that had existed for close on 55 years. But this section dramatically changed the position.

The first case was in 1946 in your Lordships' House. This was the case of Nicholls v. Austin. There was an accident to a woman worker at a woodworking machine. She was injured by a fragment of wood which she was feeding into a machine. Part of it flew out and hit her. The decision of the House of Lords was that there was no liability on the part of the employer and no breach of the section. This was quite different from the decision that had been previously made in Hindle v. Birtwistle. The remark of Lord Simonds was that: The fence is intended to keep the worker out, not to keep the machine or its products in.

In 1961 there was a further case, Close v. The Steel Company of Wales. This arose out of an accident in which a worker was using an electric drill; a bit of the drill shattered, and a piece entered his eye. The House of Lords, sitting in its Judicial capacity, held that, even if the danger was foreseeable, the employers were not liable under the section, as the obligation under the section was to provide fencing for the purpose of preventing the body of the operator coming into contact with the machinery—I repeat, preventing the body of the operator coming into contact with the machinery—the same principle as the previous one I have just quoted. Lord Denning, who dissented, said: I fail to see how any speeches"— and I believe he was then referring to the statements made in the House of Lords, sitting in its Judicial capacity, not in Parliamentary Assembly— can bind your Lordships to hold that a dangerous part of the machinery need not be fenced when the Statute expressly says that it shall be. That is the problem, and perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will agree with me. It is a fact that subsection (1) of this section says that every dangerous part of any machinery shall be securely fenced. The proviso appears in subsection (2), and I think this is where the House of Lords, sitting in Parliamentary Assembly in 1937, was perhaps misled. Subsection (1) clearly, is a general provision. Subsection (2) is a proviso; but it was not meant, as I understand it, to reduce the strength of the first subsection.

The third case that I would quote is that of Sparrow v. Fairey Aviation. Here a lathe worker was engaged in boring a central hole in a petrol filler cap, and he was doing it with a tool which came into contact with part of the machinery that was not regarded as dangerous in itself and which, therefore, was not fenced. The result was that the man's hand was thrown forward on to the machine and was damaged. I think it would be right if I read the Court's finding. It was found that they were part of the machinery which was not securely fenced, but as it was the tool and not the man's hand which came into contact with the dangerous part, it was held that the employer was not in breach of the section as the section did not require the employer to fence the dangerous part so as to protect a workman against the risk of a tool coming into contact with a dangerous part, and this was so even though the tool was being perfectly and properly used and there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the workman. The workman failed in his action to recover compensation.

My last quotation is from Lord Reid. He said: If I had simply to go to the words of the statute unaided by authority"— he was referring to previous decisions of this House— I would find it difficult to see any answer to the appellant's case. The jaws were dangerous, they were not fenced, and they were not as safe as they would have been if securely fenced. The appellant was not negligent and was in the course of his ordinary work. His hand was injured as a result of the tool he was properly using coming into contact with the jaws. This section has been subject to three decisions of this House. He goes on further—and I quote from the All England Law Reports, 1962, at page 709: … so if the presence of those provisions—that is, Section 14(2) of the Factory Act—turned the case in the Nicholls case"— that is the one I first quoted— and an examination of the speeches in this House suggest to me that it may well have done so, that would mean that by inserting them Parliament narrowed the meaning of 'securely fenced' and thereby deprived workers of part of the protection that they had enjoyed before these provisions were inserted. I find it impossible to believe that Parliament could have intended to do that.

None of us here, I believe, was in the Government, or even in Parliament, in 1937, but I wonder whether the Government, since this matter was first raised by my honourable friend for Derby, North, in December, can now say whether it was the intention of the Government of the day, when they passed this Act, to narrow the law to the disadvantage of the worker and to reduce the responsibility of the employer. I would further ask: is that the view of the Government of to-day? Do they believe that the present provisions are as right and as fair to the worker as they were prior to the passing of the 1937 Act, and of its interpretation by the House of Lords?

As I have said earlier, there is no evidence that this House was aware of the change of law. There is no evidence that the Government intended a change of the law. Now, what action can we take to-day? As I said earlier, this Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill includes the offending words—the words that narrowed the protection that workers had received for 66 years until 1946, which protection was, I believe, lost quite unintentionally by the Government and Parliament. I understand that the Government are aware of the problem. They have suggested that it might be possible to rectify the position by regulation. As I understand it, there may be some advantage to the worker if regulations are passed. They certainly would have the same weight as if Parliament repealed the position in the 1937 Act and took out the offending words in this Bill.

But, from experience, regulations are usually specifically related to particular types of machine, to particular types of factory and operation. I believe this matter is so important that it should not be left to regulations. It should be dealt with in something wider and have the full weight of public legislation. If we were to accept the Government suggestion of regulation I would question whether we should be right to allow these offending words to remain in the Bill. Because they are there. They would continue to limit in law the protection which, as I have said, workers have had for 66 years.

If we were to pass this Bill as it now stands—and I consider it would be in the public interest we should—I believe we should, in fact, be confirming and condoning the error that was made in the passing of the 1937 Act. For that reason, even if the Government were to consider a regulation, I believe these particular words, which limit and narrow the protection purely to the person operating the machine and only when he comes into contact with it, would be wrong. This, I believe, is the crux of the way in which we should respond to any offer the Government make: have they any indication of whether Government and Parliament in 1937 intended, appreciated or understood that the law of 66 years was being so amended? If it were so, then I think the Government of the day treated this House in an ill way in not informing it of a major change of law.

Are the Government of the will and belief that this position should be rectified; that a worker, an operative in a factory, should have the absolute protection from any mishap or accident that may arise from his work and the operation of a machine which is in the ownership and control of his employer, subject to his own negligence? I appreciate that the possibility of a large number of accidents is small; but it is the principle that matters. I believe if this House were to say, before this Bill goes to its final stage, that we wished to change the position, then it would be very much up to the Government to say that the Factories Act, which has caused so much hardship and so much cost, could be quickly amended to bring it into line with the wishes of the House under this Bill. I think it would be an act of justice. My noble friends believe that protection should be absolute. It is the duty of an employer to see his machines are so fenced as to reduce to the greatest extent possible any fear of accidents, not only to the operator but to all those around.

I think that this Committee should make it plain and see whether, by the inclusion of my Amendment, it is pos- sible to rectify the position. I will not stand on the words of my Amendment. It is drafted to the best of my ability. I believe that the principle is clear and, if the principle is acceptable, I am sure that we could find words to implement it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD NEWTON

I should like to deal first with the Act of 1937. I would wholly reject the suggestion that it was some kind of underhand move to make life easier for employers.

LORD SHEPHERD

I never suggested that.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Lord suggested that there was something peculiar about it. The point is that the 1937 Act was the result of years of discussion between both sides, and it came before Parliament substantially agreed upon by those concerned. If the protection was unnecessarily weakened subsequently, this was unfortunate, but it will not have been the first time that the courts have interpreted an Act of Parliament in ways not anticipated by those who passed it.

I come to the Amendment the noble Lord has moved. The noble Lord is trying to strengthen Clause 17 so as to prevent the worker, so far as is reasonably practicable, from being injured through the ejection of materials or parts of machinery or through his clothing or tools coming into contact with the machinery. As the noble Lord admitted in his speech, this question received considerable attention in another place. The Government made it clear there, and I certainly wish to make it clear again, that we are far from being indifferent to this kind of hazard. But it is still our opinion that the right way to deal with this problem is by regulations, which can be made after consultations with those who are familiar with the hazards and the particular circumstances of the processes or operations which are involved.

I think it must be agreed that the problem with which we are concerned in this Amendment is essentially a problem in factories rather than offices and shops. In general, one would not expect premises covered by this Bill to be places containing machinery which throw out pieces of themselves or of their product to the danger of workers or where dangers occur from the trapping of tools held by workers. However, should there be such hazards which are capable of removal by legal requirements, we are certain that my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has ample power under Clause 20 of this Bill to make regulations to deal with the matter.

This does not come under Clause 17. Whether Clause 17, rightly or wrongly, follows the wording of the Factories Act is irrelevant to the question of how, in this Bill, we are going to make provision for giving such protection as is legally possible to workers in shops and offices from pieces which are ejected from machines which they operate. I recognise that the qualification which the noble Lord has put into his Amendment in the words "so far as is reasonably practicable," removes some of the difficulties inherent in the Amendment proposed in another place. The noble Lord's Amendment is less open to the criticism that it requires protection which would put many machines out of use. I can tell the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour had already considered the possibility of dealing with the problem we are concerned with by a provision on the lines of the noble Lord's Amendment but had decided that this would not provide an acceptable solution. In the first place, the obligation qualified by the words "so far as reasonably practicable" would hardly place any stronger duty on the employer than his existing Common Law duty to take reasonable care for the safety of his employees. The provision would merely tend to increase the uncertainty of the law without making any real increase in the protection given to workpeople.

I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to consider this. It would surely be wrong to enact a general requirement which is known at the outset to be impracticable in many cases, and then to qualify it by a general formula of uncertain application. I would suggest that the right course is to decide, having regard to all the technical and practical considerations, what protection can and should be required by law in particular cases, and then to impose specific requirements under Clause 20 of the Bill. In that way the law is certain; both employers and enforcing officers know where they are, and, even more important, a real contribution is made to safety. This is because specific practical action can be laid down and enforced. There is nothing between us, I think, in the belief that all practicable steps should be taken to avoid the risk of accidents of this kind to people who work in offices and shops.

I should like to suggest a yet further reason why the way in which my right honourable friend thinks it right to tackle the problem is most likely to achieve successfully the ends we all want to achieve. When deciding what practical, effective provision should be made for guarding against hazards from particular machines, he will be able to frame his precise proposals in the light of the advice he receives from the Factory Inspectorate and from the consultations he has with those familiar with the problem on both sides of industry. I think that is a better way to deal with it than by leaving these matters to be settled by the repercussions which can follow from court decisions as to what is, or is not, reasonably practicable in particular and possibly untypical cases. I hope the noble Lord will feel that we are just as anxious to guard against these risks, in so far as they can be guarded against by any legal process, as anyone else. We think this is the best way of doing it, and we have every intention of making regulations to deal with the problem when we can.

LORD SHEPHERD

I should be less than honest to say that I was satisfied, but perhaps that is the usual attitude of the Opposition. I should be satisfied, I feel, only if we could get a major change to this clause. Certainly we should like to see the limitation of the machinery with the operator, although I recognise that the matter can be widened on the other clause dealing with registration. The Committee has been very patient, as I made rather a long speech, and, therefore, I should not wish to delay matters further. I will carefully consider the points the noble Lord has made this evening and will consult with my noble friends to decide whether we should proceed with the matter at a later stage. I would only say this to the noble Lord, Lord Newton. The last two cases to which I referred are quite different from the decision which has prevailed for 66 years. Under the Factories Act, 1937, the Secretary of State had power to make regulations. My information is that no regulation in regard to that section was ever made. Therefore, we should need the firmest assurances not only that it would be the Government's intention to deal with offices and shops, but also that they were looking seriously at the main problem which lies in the Factories Act. We will not quarrel at this stage, but it was my understanding that there were no regulations on this matter. I thank the Committee for having listened so attentively to what I have said. I am sorry I have delayed them so long, and in these conditions I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Avoidance of exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning machinery]:

9.32 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved to add to the clause: ( ) The Minister may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe that the preceding subsection shall apply to any class of disabled or other persons specified in the regulations.

The noble Lord said: We regard this clause as a wholly admirable one. Your Lordships will remember that on a previous Amendment we tried hard to include under the protection of this clause all those relatives of employers excluded by Clause 2 of this Bill. We felt that the subsection could be improved and strengthened by the words we proposed. The clause is based on Section 20 of the Factories Act, which contains this sort of provision. But the Factories Act covered not only young people, but also women. Women have been entirely left out of the provisions of this clause, but I must admit that that does not worry me particularly, because I do not think a trained woman is more "ham-handed" than a trained man would be. However, there are some categories of persons who we feel might be brought under this clause and be prevented from cleaning machinery having moving parts. There might be an exclusion of people with defective eyesight. It has been suggested to me that pregnant women in the later stages of their pregnancy become clumsy and ought not to be required to clean machinery with moving parts. Those appear to me to be some of the categories which might be excluded by the Minister under regulations.

Experience of the operation of this clause might well show that those categories I have mentioned, and others, should be brought under the protective umbrella of Clause 18. All we are asking the Minister to do by this comparatively simple Amendment is to reserve to himself the right, by regulation, to fix other categories which might come into it. I think it is a simple point. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has understood it. I have moved it briefly; nevertheless, I feel that this is an Amendment which has some point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Champion.)

LORD CARRINGTON

If I may say so, I think the noble Lord has made a good case for this Amendment. I think there is the possibility that there would be circumstances in which it was desirable to restrict the cleaning of machinery to persons other than young persons. The only misgiving I have is whether or not "disabled persons" should be singled out in this particular respect. Quite a few disabled persons are thoroughly competent to clean machinery, and I think that to single them out might perhaps make it more difficult in some cases for people to employ them. So, if the noble Lord will allow me to study the words he has used in his Amendment—I think probably to leave out "disabled persons" because some classes would come in under the blanket powers that the Minister would have—I would undertake to put down an Amendment on Report stage or ask him to put down one with an agreed wording.

LORD CHAMPION

With the noble Lord, of course, I recognise that there are varying degrees of disability. That is no personal reference, and I do not know why my noble friends laughed. I will not delay proceedings, but I will thank the noble Lord for his very friendly reply and hope to get something done on this matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.36 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved to insert at end: (2) In this section, 'young person' means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen".

The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this Amendment, and I will endeavour to speak to the others which will be consequential. This is quite simple. This is the clause which deals with the training and supervision of young persons working dangerous machinery. I do not see why this should be restricted merely to young people. I think that when any person of any age is called upon to operate machinery, or to clean it or otherwise—

LORD CHAMPION

May I interrupt my noble friend? I rather fear he has jumped 47A.

LORD CARRINGTON

He is coming to the substance of the Amendment.

LORD CHAMPION

Amendment 47A is another thing, and I would suggest to my noble friend that, although my name is also on the Amendment, this is covered by the Interpretation Clause, unless I am very much mistaken, and it does mean a person under 18 years.

LORD CARRINGTON

I do not know whether I can help out on this point, but I think that 47(A) and 103(A) lead into Amendments 48 and 48(A).

LORD SHEPHERD

Perhaps we shall get it straight, but we do understand what we are talking about. We are dealing with the first of the young persons of Clause 19. As I was saying, this clause is dealing with the training of young persons. My view, which I am sure is shared in the House—

LORD AIREDALE

The wording here refers to young persons who have not attained the age of eighteen; and, as has been pointed out, the Interpretation Clause gives that very definition: 'young person' means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen.

LORD SHEPHERD

I do understand and it is quite clear. The problem was that I put down this Amendment to delete "young person", but it was found that instead of having the definition of a "young person" at the back of the Bill it would be brought forward and put into Clause 18. Therefore, I beg to move No. 47(A), which defines a "young person" as a "person who has not attained the age of eighteen". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD CARRINGTON

I only hope, after all that, that I am going to accept the right Amendment. As I understand it, this Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved is paving the way for No. 48, since we are going to delete reference to "young" person in Clause 19. On behalf of the Government, I am very happy to accept the noble Lord's Amendment and Amendments Nos. 103(A), 48, and 48(A).

LORD SHEPHERD

That just shows that, if we are prepared to wait, we may even find a few crumbs from the table. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for this concession.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 [Training and supervision of young persons working dangerous machines]:

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 20, leave out "young".—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 31, leave out ("young").— (Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Power of magistrates' courts and sheriffs to make orders for putting down dangerous conditions and practices]:

LORD AIREDALE

The noble Viscount Lord Colville of Culross, had notified his intention not to move the next Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

I was going to move it formally, saying that the Amendment was self-explanatory.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. There is no need for me to explain it, because the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, says it is self-explanatory. Perhaps the Government would explain it.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 18, at end insert: ("( ) No complaint or summary application shall be made by virtue of the foregoing subsection unless the authority shall have served upon the occupier of the premises a notice specifying—

1. (a) the matters upon which the complaint or summary application is made,
2. (b) the requirements of the authority in respect to any such matters, and
3. (c) a reasonable time within which such requirements are to be fulfilled

and the occupier has failed within such time to fulfil any such requirement").—(Lord Shackleton.)

LORD NEWTON

The first thing I had batter do is tell your Lordships what the Amendment does. Although two of your Lordships have moved it, neither has explained what it is all about. In fact, the object of Lord Shackleton's Amendment and the object of Lord Hawke's Amendment is to give the occupier a reasonable time to remedy the matters giving rise to the complaint before the complaint is made. The object of Clause 22 is to enable a magistrates' court to put down dangerous conditions and practices—that is to say, those carrying risks of bodily injury or injury to health. Experience of the Factories Act (which incidentally makes a similar provision in Section 54) shows that this power is necessary, even if the occasions on which it has to be used are, fortunately, very rare.

I would suggest to your Lordships that where dangers of this kind exist it is necessary to ensure that protective action is taken without delay. If an occupier can put the matter right immediately, then no enforcing authority is going to take steps to make a complaint. The effect of the Amendment is to allow occupiers a period of time to remedy the danger, during which the employees would continue to be exposed to it. This would involve a lower standard of protection than is provided under the Factories Act. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, or the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, or your Lordships at large, would think such a step acceptable either to them or the House. I hope that, together or separately, they will withdraw the Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

I shall study my noble friend's answer with great interest—or rather my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will. I think there is some flaw in his answer, in that in either case I should have thought there was an interval of time during which the nuisance could go on. However, I am not sufficiently up in the matter to argue with him, and therefore I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD SHACKLETON

I think I moved the Amendment; I am sure I did—unless the noble Lord claims to have moved it. I thought he did not.

LORD HAWKE

I think we created a precedent, because the Amendment has been moved by two noble Lords from opposite sides of the House at the same moment.

LORD SHACKLETON

Before either of us withdraws it, I think the Government are entirely right, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [First aid: general provisions]:

9.46 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON moved, in subsection (7), after the first "may" to insert "at the request of or". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 should be taken together. They are almost drafting Amendments, and it may well be that the purpose they seek to fulfil is satisfactorily attained by other words in what I must admit is an extremely difficult clause and one to which I think we shall have to devote a little attention on the Question, That the clause shall stand part of the Bill.

The purpose of these Amendments is simply to provide that where other facilities than a first-aid box and a first-aider are provided which are of a kind that would qualify for exemption, it shall not be an offence on the part of employers in this particular case, they having requested exemption, if they continue not to provide the first-aid box until such time as the inspectors or the court (whichever it may be) make up their mind. Particular circumstances, of course, are the case of a firm which provides rather more elaborate medical facilities—probably a medical room, staffed, perhaps, by a medical sister, and where a first-aid box, as such, and a first-aider are not needed. The Bill makes provision that where there are such facilities there is no need for the first-aid box. I think we should all agree with that. Unfortunately, it will be an offence in the interim period, even when the room, or the sister or the medical facilities are provided, not to provide a first-aid box.

The purpose of this fairly simple Amendment is to enable the occupier to take action to secure the relevant exemption so that, having taken such action, there will be no obligation to comply with the basic requirements of the clause other than by the provision of a first-aid room. I do not think this weakens the purpose of this clause at all and it may provide a clarification; but I shall be interested to know from the Government whether they consider this exemption to be necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 31, after ("may") insert ("at the request of or").—(Lord Shackleton.)

LORD CARRINGTON

The noble Lord has what I might call a theoretical point, but I do not think that his Amendment is necessary, for this reason: in his second Amendment he states that subsection (7) is not to render employment unlawful while an application for exemption from the general first-aid requirement is being considered. I do not think that that is the case. I think the noble Lord may have misunderstood the position. There is nothing in the Bill to make employment unlawful in such a case. The only effect of the clause is that an employer remains subject to its general requirements relating to first-aid boxes until an exemption has actually been issued. I think that this is the point that worries the noble Lord. I believe that this is more a problem of theory than of fact. I cannot conceive that any authority would prosecute an employer while they were considering his application for an exemption. It is difficult, too, to envisage any successful proceedings by private persons if a satisfactory first-aid room existed.

In point of fact, this subsection is exactly similar to the comparable subsection in the Factories Act, and, so far as I know—the noble Lord may have other information, but I have made inquiries—this has not raised the sort of difficulty the noble Lord has in mind. There have been no cases in which this problem has arisen. For those reasons—first, because I cannot conceive that a prosecution would be taken while exemption was being discussed; and, secondly, because exactly similar words in the Factories Act have not caused this difficulty—I do not think the noble Lord's Amendment is necessary.

LORD SHACKLETON

The employer in these cases will be technically guilty of an offence. I do not know that this has caused any difficulty under the Factories Act, but attention had been drawn to it and some anxiety expressed; and I think we might leave it there. If the noble Lord afterwards, after having had this brief exchange, comes to any other conclusion, no doubt he will take action. In those circumstances, I am grateful for the explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD LINDGREN

I do not think that Clause 24 is a satisfactory clause. Had I had any anticipation of the fact the Government would be in the mess they are with their timetable, I would have put down an Amendment to this clause. I rise now only to give notice that I intend to put one down on Report stage. Looking at this purely from the point of view of the normal industrial and clerical worker, or the clerical worker who is associated with industrial activity, I would say that this, again, is a far worse clause than Clause 61 of the Factories Act. I should much prefer my colleagues working in offices to be under the protection of Clause 61 rather than under this clause. When we come to the Report stage I shall move in that direction. I admit that I would have done it at this stage had I thought we should be on this clause to-night, but I believed we should have been on it earlier but for the delays we have had—for which neither the Government and certainly not the Opposition are responsible.

I feel that there is no obligation on the employer to see that a competent person is in charge of the first-aid box. Again perhaps I must admit an interest. For well over forty years I have been an active member of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, and I was encouraged in that activity by the old railway companies because of the possibility of accidents in connection with the railways. The British Red Cross and the St. John's Ambulance Brigade of course cover accident work in their training, but it is a dangerous policy to think that the placing of a few bandages and splints in a box, and appointing a person to be in charge of it, is meeting the provision of first aid. Equally in this clause there is no requirement that the person shall maintain competence. There are certain employers who might encourage a person to go for a dozen lectures and pass the first certificate at a local St. John's or British Red Cross course of lectures, and then fifteen years later still expect that person to be competent. As I have said, I do not consider this clause satisfactory, and I give notice to the Government that I shall move towards bringing certain parts of Section 61 of the Factories Act into this clause, because I think they are much to be preferred to those contained in this Clause.

LORD SHACKLETON

May I ask just one technical question? I am not quite clear what happens under Clause 24(4)(a) when the first-aider goes on holiday. It may be that this matter is adequately covered in Clause 24(5)(a). I have looked at it fairly carefully and taken legal advice, and Clause 24(4)(a) seems to suggest that only one person can be in charge. Later, in Clause 24(5)(a), it says that there can be more than one person. It may be that "the person in charge" is a collective description. Again, it is not made clear, so far as I can see, that if there is more than one person in charge the other person must also be trained. I do not want to press this point too hard, because I am obviously moderately confused myself about it. However, it has confused other people, and if the Minister feels less confused, perhaps he could help me.

LORD CARRINGTON

I ought to be able to answer this question. I have tried very hard to get to know this Bill, but I am afraid I really cannot give an on-the-spot answer. Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to look into it and write to him, and if he is not satisfied with the answer that he gets in writing perhaps he will put an Amendment down on Report stage.

With regard to Lord Lindgren's remarks, I will, of course, wait and see what Amendments he puts down. The only general comment I would make op what he said is that I hope he will remember, in the Amendments that he puts down, that shops and offices are really in rather a different category from factories, and, on the face of it—though one might not think so by some of the things we have been discussing—they are, generally speaking, rather less dangerous places than factories. So some of the provisions have been made less stringent in this case than in the other.

LORD LINDGREN

I will, of course, accept that in the normal sense. But noble Lords opposite must not keep thinking in terms of a solicitor's office. Office organisation is changing rapidly. I can take the noble Lord into offices which are almost like a blacksmith's shop, for the noise that is created and the machines that are in them. Because of the cost of those machines, and with the development of those machines that is going to take place, there will be a tendency, more and more, for employers to keep those machines going for twenty-four hours. This idea that an office is a nine-to-five quiet job must go by the board. More and more it is likely to tend towards being a twenty-four hours' job in some sections, and when we are dealing with legislation we ought to be able to look forward a little. I am trying to look forward, and I think that in relation to first-aid in particular, when we are going to have night work, when we are going to have more and more women operating machines, and when there is going to be feeding of the material into the machines by the backroom staff, it is more important that we should have competent persons in charge of first-aid arrangements, rather than the haphazard methods we had when we just had a pen and pencil in an office.

LORD CARRINGTON

I accept a great deal of what the noble Lord says, but, if I may say so, he must also remember that there are offices where these things do not happen. There are offices in London and the City which employ a great many people and we must be careful not to make unreasonable demands on people of this sort. I think we must plan in this Bill between one and the other.

LORD SHACKLETON

There is just one more point that the noble Lord can think out, and perhaps not write to me but be ready for an Amendment on it. Again, it is a technicality. It appears in Clause 25(5)(b) that if one or other of two or more persons in charge of a box are absent casualties may be treated only from the cupboard of the remaining first-aider. This seems ridiculous, to put it mildly. I say no more. I do not ask the noble Lord necessarily to answer that point.

May I make one other point about first-aid generally? First-aid and medical services, both in industry and in commerce, are becoming much more than the treatment of injuries. Indeed, I would have said that one of the most valuable developments of to-day in terms of health is the development of what might be called the industrial health service. Obviously, where there are properly equipped medical rooms, and sisters in charge of them, there is not only an enormous advantage to the individual but a great saving in time, a saving in illness, and so on. First-aid, and somebody who is competent enough, when a member of the staff is feeling, say, one degree under, or whatever it may be, to say, "You have got influenza. Go home"—that is the sort of thing. I would not have said that there was that degree of difference between these premises and a factory; and our preference for the factory legislation is, frankly, that it is a good deal more intelligible than this particular clause.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Penalization of negligent acts and interference with equipment, &c.]:

10.1 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and" and insert "or". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51 A. First of all, may I ask for an explanation from the Minister in regard to it? I have noticed the marginal note, which says, Penalization of negligent acts and interference with equipment, &c. That is the rubric to the clause; and yet nowhere in the clause is there any reference to negligence. I am giving the Government some credit, because I believe that their intention in the clause is to say "If, according to it, wilfully or without reasonable cause, somebody does so and so …" My reading of it, or the intention I should like to impute to the Government, is that it should be one or the other, but not both. If that is not so, then I am giving credit to the Government which they do not deserve. I would quite definitely say that there are two aspects here: whether a person wilfully does a thing, or whether he does it without reasonable cause. There is a complete distinction between them.

I would suggest that my substitution of "or" for "and" makes quite clear what I thought was the Government's intention, but, from the inclination of the head of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think I must have been wrong. Therefore, I am more certain than ever that I was quite correct in putting down this Amendment, so as to make it two offences, not for it to be necessary for there to be a combination of two offences before there is breach. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 8, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD CARRINGTON

I hope I can explain this to the noble Lord. This particular phrase, "wilfully and without reasonable cause", is the result of an Amendment which was accepted by my right honourable friend from the Labour Party in another place, and it had the effect of bringing this provision more closely into line with Section 143(2) of the Factories Act. Perhaps I could try to explain why these two concepts of wilfulness and acting without reasonable cause are linked together in the subsection, because I agree with the noble Lord that at first sight one queries it. The reason is this. There may be circumstances in which a dangerous act is necessary to avoid still greater dangers to the health or safety of employed persons. If a fire broke out in premises, or some other serious calamity occurred, some action might have to be taken which, although it carried some danger of risk to the safety of some persons, might be essential in order to avoid further and greater dangers. Rescue operations are likely to be an example of the sort of thing I have in mind; and the Government thought, and believe, it would be wrong to penalise a wilful act of this kind which could be shown to have a reasonable cause.

The effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, would be to widen greatly the circumstances in which a person could be guilty of an offence under this subsection; and one must bear in mind that an employee is just as likely, if not more likely, to be penalised under this clause as an employer. If the noble Lord's Amendment were adopted an employed person who did something wilful but with good cause would be penalised. He would also be penalised for some stupid or careless act which, though not wilful, was done without reasonable cause. This is close to the meaning of the world "negligent" which my right honourable friend was asked to remove: in another place as a result of representations made. He felt and those who put the Amendment down felt that mere negligence on the part of an employee should not be the basis of criminal proceedings. This Amendment was put down therefore to meet that point. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied.

LORD LINDGREN

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It goes to show that even I have not done my homework on the debates in another place, and it also shows that it is not always true that great minds think alike. In the light of the noble Lord's explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD AIREDALE

May I point out that the word "negligent" has not been taken out of the sidenote? It still speaks of a negligent act. Perhaps that could be looked at.

LORD CARRINGTON

I noticed it, but I was sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, was going to mention it.

LORD LINDGREN

I did mention it in the first part of my statement.

LORD CARRINGTON

It was that that drew my attention to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD NEWTON

I beg to move this Amendment formally. It is an Amendment to correct drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 18, leave out ("therein mentioned") and insert ("mentioned in, as the case may be, the one section or the other,").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Certification of premises by appropriate authority]:

LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "twenty" and insert "ten". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 clearly go together, and I think we can discuss them together. These Amendments are designed to carry out the recommendations of the Gowers Committee in respect of this important matter of fire precautions and the certificates granted under this section. The Gowers Committee, after considering it, said this in paragraph 61 of their Report: It is laid down in Section 37(1) of the Factories Act that where in any factory more than 20 persons are employed in the same building above the first floor, or more than 20 feet above ground level, or where explosives or highly inflammable matter are stored or used in any building where persons are employed, effective steps should be taken to ensure that all persons employed are familiar with the means of escape in case of fire and with their use and with the routine to be followed in case of fire.

They went on: This, too, we think should be applied to shops and offices, but as the design of many shop and office buildings is more complicated than that of factories usually are, we suggest that 'ten persons' should be substituted for '20 persons' and there seems to be no good reason to confine the section to employees above the first floor or more than 20 foot above ground level. In many old buildings, some of the windows of which are often barred, it is only too easy in an emergency to lose one's way at ground level, and in new buildings there are often extensive basements and basement passages which are confusing to those who do not know them.

The Gowers Committee ware quite right about this. To-day a surprising variety of premises are used as offices. I am familiar with the City of Cardiff and I see more and more offices moving into old dwellings as the people move outwards to the suburbs. Most of these old buildings have narrow stairways and have central heating installed in them, in converting them into offices. This makes the old wooden stairways highly inflammable and very dangerous. It is also the fact that there is much inflammable material to be found in and around offices—masses of paper and that sort of thing—and most office workers are permitted to smoke, and smokers of cigarettes are notoriously careless with their cigarette ends. We find in the reports of responsible fire officers that fires have often been caused by cigarette ends or matches that are thrown down not properly extinguished. I think that the Gowers Committee were right in their recommendation, and we consider that the figures the Government have incorporated in the Bill of 20 and 10 should have substituted for them the 10 and 5 of our Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 36, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("ten").—(Lord Champion)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I am in sympathy with the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has advanced in support of this two Amendments, but what is worrying me is the importance of obtaining the right priorities in regard to these fire risks. There is no doubt that the fire authorities will have a big task under the Bill even as it stands at present, examining premises, issuing certificates and giving advice to all those who will no doubt ask for it. A large increase 'in the number of premises which they are called upon to inspect for 'the purpose of issuing fire certificates, as would be entailed by these Amendments, would be bound to divert their efforts from the bigger premises where the risks in the event of fire will affect more people than in the smaller places which the Amendments seek to cover.

The Bill already goes a long way to meet the intention of these Amendments by providing in Clause 29 that where a building contains two sets or more of premises covered by the Bill, the numbers of persons employed in the premises shall be added up for the purposes of deciding whether a "means of escape" certificate is necessary. In this way, we have distinguished between the small office or shop standing on its own, where the escape risks in the event of fire are generally small, and the small offices and shops grouped together in a building block, where the risks are likely to be higher. In the latter case, the owner of the building will have to apply for a "means of escape" certificate if the total of persons employed in premises covered by the Bill exceeds 20 on the ground floor or 10 on any other floor. These criteria are the same as those used in the Factories Act.

Supposing there are still special classes of premises, within the ambit of the Bill, which have a high fire risk and are not required to have a "means of escape" certificate under Clause 29 as drafted: if the Minister is satisfied after examining any evidence that is sent to him that more needs to be done in these cases, he has power under subsection (9) of Clause 29 to bring such a class of premises within the scope of the certification procedure in this part of the Bill. But even if premises do not meet the criteria in subsection (1), and are not therefore subject to the certification procedure, they are still subject to Clause 28(1), which states that all premises to which the Act applies shall be provided with such means of escape in case of fire as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case.

My arguments are, to sum up, that Clause 28 gives general protection to all premises; that the aggregation provision I have mentioned already brings in many of the places that noble Lords opposite may have in mind; that there are powers to deal with any other type of (premises with special risks under Clause 29(9), and that it is important to get priorities right in the provisions relating to fire certificates. For these reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the noble Lord's Amendments.

LORD SHACKLETON

I do not quite understand, even now, why the Government are ignoring the very specific Gowers recommendation. So far as I understand it, it is that the noble Lord has suggested that this is a matter of priorities, and that the fire authorities will be so busy that they will not be able to deal with this right away. Of course, we all know buildings of this kind that, frankly, are fire traps, and in any large building where a lot of people are employed it will be necessary to provide a means of escape, even if only, say, one or two people are working underground in a basement. Here we might have rather more, in the circumstances. But what I am suggesting is that, if it is only a matter of priority, would the Government consider taking powers in this clause to vary the numbers by order at a later date? This is the sort of procedure that they have elsewhere; they have it in regard to certain other clauses. It will then enable them, if the evidence is brought to their notice, to deal with this without having to introduce another Act of Parliament. It is just conceivable that they already have these powers somewhere, but, if not, I think they ought to have them. I urge this quite seriously, and I hope we may get a promise, at least, to consider the point.

LORD NEWTON

I will certainly consider the point, but I cannot give any undertaking that it will be considered favourably.

LORD SHEPHERD

Perhaps I can help. I think in subsection (9) the Minister has power to make special regulations.

LORD SHACKLETON

But not for this point.

LORD NEWTON

Is that Clause 29(9)?

LORD SHEPHERD

Yes.

LORD NEWTON

The object of Clause 29(9) is to bring under the certification procedure precisely those premises which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, called death-traps, which would not otherwise be covered. That was one of the arguments which I cited when I was speaking earlier for suggesting to your Lordships that it was not really necessary to accept the noble Lord's Amendments.

LORD CHAMPION

I do not think the subsection mentioned covers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. He has made the excellent suggestion that the Minister might in this Bill take powers eventually to lower the numbers laid down in this clause as the difficulties of the Inspectorate and the number of inspectors, and so on, are cleared up. Having regard to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has undertaken to look at the suggestion of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CARRINGTON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 40, leave out the second ("the") and insert ("any such").—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.23 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it necessary for that type of building where the stairways, the only possible means of escape from upstairs premises, are constructed of inflammable material, to have a fire certificate. As one travels the country, one sees not only bright, modern buildings going up, but many conversions of old residential houses into offices. Many of these buildings to-day have no fire escape. It may be that it will be possible to have fire escapes, but that may take some time. I and my noble friends feel that where there are these old offices, and particularly where they have been converted, those persons upstairs should have some protection under this Bill. What we wish to do is to see that any building which has stairs constructed of inflammable material—wood is an example: in old houses it becomes as dry as tinder and can flare up very quickly—should be subject to a certificate, and certainly subject to regular inspection. With those few words, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 3, at end insert— ("(d) for any person to be employed other than on the ground floor of any premises where stairs are constructed of inflammable material").—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD NEWTON

The principal reason why I resisted two Amendments moved just now by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was that they would have had the effect of requiring a greater number of fire certificates to be issued than otherwise. This Amendment, of course, has precisely the same effect, and therefore the same arguments in rebuttal apply. There is, however, one further point that I might make to the noble Lord. As I have said, there are these powers in subsection (9) to extend the certification procedure to any class of premises if my right honourable friend thinks it necessary. The presence of a staircase constructed of inflammable material is only one of a number of factors which he might take into account as a special risk justifying the certification procedure under Clause 29(9). I do not honestly think it would be right to single out one particular criterion, important though it may be, without detailed and expert examination. If one singles these buildings out as a class, one might be distorting the priorities to which I referred earlier. For these reasons I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

Like my noble friends on the previous Amendments, I hear the news from the noble Lord without a great deal of satisfaction. I will consider this matter between now and the next stage and decide what to do. But some of these conversions which are taking place are capable of very great menace, and while it may not be possible to deal with some of the old existing offices I think we should consider the conversions which are going on, or at least those which are now starting, and see that they conform to the proper standards. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.26 p.m.

LORD NEWTON moved in subsection (5) to leave out paragraph (a) and insert the following new paragraph: (a) specify the greatest number of persons who, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, can safely be employed to work at any one time in the premises".

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, and it may be convenient to your Lordships if, at the same time, I discuss the consequential Amendments, Nos. 60 and 61. These Amendments are designed to improve the procedure relating to fire certificates. Under subsection (5)(a) of Clause 29, a fire authority is required to specify in the fire certificate the number of employed persons stated in the application for the certificate as the greatest number employed to work at any one time in the premises, or proposed to be so employed. My right honourable friend thinks it desirable to amend that requirement so that the fire authority would instead specify in the fire certificate the greatest number of persons who, in the opinion of the authority, could safely be employed to work at any one time in the premises.

This amended procedure should prove helpful to both owners and occupiers and, indeed, to fire authorities, without in any way reducing the protection for employed persons; indeed, the specification of a maximum safe number should improve protection. The occupier will know that, with the given means of escape, he can safely increase his staff to the number stated in the certificate without making a further application to the fire authority. The fire authority will be spared unnecessary paper work and additional inspections of premises, and the new procedure should also help owners responsible for the fire precautions in buildings to which Clauses 42 and 43 apply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 7, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 [Maintenance of means of escape in case of fire, and inspection by appropriate authority]:

LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (5) to insert: (d) specify the person responsible (subject to any regulations made under section 38(2) of this Act) for seeing that the provisions of sections 28 to 38 of this Act are complied with.

The noble Lord said: What I am trying to do by this Amendment is to ensure that the responsibility for seeing that the provisions of Clauses 28 to 38 are complied with is placed firmly on the shoulders of someone who shall have a personal responsibility for it. We want to ensure that, without any shadow of doubt, someone will be responsible. I always think that in matters of this kind, unless someone is charged with a definite duty there is always a tendency to "leave it to George"—to the other chap. Under Clause 29(1), provision is made respecting a building containing two sets or more of premises. These premises have common stairways, they may very well have common emergency exits, the approach to which must be kept clear for emergency use by all persons employed in the two or more sets of premises. Clearly, the responsibility for maintaining those exits and keeping open the means of escape ought to devolve on a single person and not on a committee of the: occupiers of the premises.

Clause 53 deals with the powers of local authorities and the Minister's inspectors. Subsection (f) of that clause reads: to require any person having responsibilities in relation to any such premises as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above (whether or not the owner or occupier of the premises or a person employed to work therein) to give him such facilities and assistance with respect to any of the matters or things to which the responsibilities of that person extend as are necessary for the purpose of enabling the inspector to exercise any of the powers conferred upon him by this subsection".

It will be noted that under Clause 53 persons having responsibilities in relation to premises may be the owners or occupiers of the premises or persons employed to work therein. I am not sure I have this correctly—I am not a lawyer—but it appears to me that any fire inspector going to a set of premises should know to whom he should go and who is responsible for carrying out the duties imposed under Clauses 28 to 31. He should be able to go to that person and point out any failure to comply with the provisions of the fire certificate, and that person to whom the inspector would go should clearly be named on the certificate to be issued under the clause we are discussing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 20, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Champion)

10.31 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Lord wants to make a particular person responsible for complying with the provisions of the Bill in all premises requiring a fire certificate, and that the certificate should bear his name. I quite appreciate that the noble Lord wants to ensure that everything possible is done to provide a high standard of fire protection, but I do not think his Amendment is necessary for this purpose, or indeed is particularly useful. The effect of Clause 62 is to make the occupier generally responsible for complying with the fire provisions of the Bill, except in the classes of buildings to which Clauses 42 and 43 refer, where the owner or owners are responsible. There is thus already a clear allocation of responsibility under the Bill, and it might be confusing if the fire certificate were to specify some other person as responsible for compliance.

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent an owner or occupier, as the case may be, from appointing an officer responsible for fire precautions if he wishes, and in many firms this will be a most commendable practice. But I would suggest it is not really appropriate to relate this to the quite separate question of certification or to make it a general requirement. I should like to add that Clause 29(5) is in fact based on Section 40(6) of the Factories Act which makes no provision for specifying a responsible person in the manner in which the noble Lord's Amendment proposes. I hope that he will be satisfied with my explanation.

LORD CHAMPION

Yes, to some extent. I can see that it is right that the certificate should be issued to the occupier, but, as I said previously, there is always the difficulty in the type of building where you have two or more sets of premises that you will have a common usage of certain things; you issue separate certificates and the difficulty will be to ensure that one or the other will be responsible for the common stairways and the common exits and so on. The noble Lord might have covered this point, but I am not quite sure he did. I shall carefully examine what he said and if necessary put down an Amendment on Report stage.

LORD NEWTON

The position is that where there is more than one occupier, then it is the owner who is responsible. I apologise if I did not make that clear.

LORD SHEPHERD

What is going to be the case in Scotland where there are premises with a large number of occupiers who are in fact owners of their particular premises? I can see some difficulty here. I can see the effect of the Bill where there is one ownership of a number of premises of tenant occupiers, but in Scotland the position is quite different. It is usual for premises and floors to be sold off. It would seem to me that there would be some difficulty there. Who is going to see in any particular case that the fire equipment is sufficient for the whole building? I think it should be clearly laid down that in that type of building somebody is recognised as being responsible. I do not know whether the noble Lord can say what is going to be the case in Scotland. If not, perhaps he could come back to the matter at a later stage.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Lord may be aware that where there is one occupier he will be responsible—it does not matter whether he is the owner or not. Where there is more than one occupier then the owner will be responsible.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Lord is probably not familiar with Scotland.

LORD LINDGREN

Nor with London, now.

LORD SHEPHERD

In Scotland it is quite usual in a block of flats or offices, or even a factory, for the floors to be owned not by one owner but separate owners—in other words, there are a number of owners in a building. In that case, who is to co-ordinate the arrangements to see that the fire equipment, fire escapes and other provisions for the building are satisfactory and kept in good order? I see one of our noble friends from Scotland. I am sure he will bear me out in the problem that may arise in regard to Scotland and Scottish buildings.

LORD FERRIER

I was just about to rise to support what the noble Lord has said. If I may venture to correct him, I would not say that it was usual, but I agree it is not uncommon, that the situation he described exists, whereby floors in the same building are separately owned. Therefore, there is some substance in what the noble Lord has said.

LORD NEWTON

I have just been confirming my impression: each owner is responsible for his own part.

LORD CHAMPION

There you have the difficulty of the common staircase and so on, down which each employer will to some extent cause his employees to go. I think that the noble Lord's offer to look at it again should be accepted. We, for our part, will look carefully at what he has said and, if necessary, will return to it on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 [Maintenance of means of escape in case of fire, and inspection by appropriate authority]:

10.39 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

This is consequential on Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 23, leave out ("materially the greatest") and insert ("the").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

This also is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 24, after ("time") insert ("above that stated in the certificate").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.40 p.m.

LORD NEWTON moved, after subsection (5), to insert: (6) Where the appropriate authority are satisfied, with respect to any premises with respect to which a notice under subsection (3) of this section has been given to them, that the giving of effect to the proposals notified will not result in the means of escape from the premises in case of fire becoming insufficient, they shall, upon production of the fire certificate in force with respect to the premises, cause to be written on the certificate a statement that they are so satisfied.

The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of Clause 30 provides that in cases where there is a change, or a proposed change, of conditions in any premises by reason of which the existing means of escape in the event of fire have become, or are likely to become, insufficient and the fire authority require alterations to be made to the premises, the fire certificate shall be amended or a new one issued. It was suggested in another place that the fire certificate should also be amended in cases where, notwithstanding the change or proposed change in conditions, the fire authorities axe satisfied that the means of escape are still insufficient. This modification of the procedure should keep fire certificates up to date and be generally helpful to owners and occupiers, and this Amendment I am moving would achieve this result. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Safety provisions in case of fire]:

LORD SHACKLETON moved at the commencement of subsection (1) to insert "Subject to the next following subsection,". The noble Lord said: Amendments 64 and 65 go together. Here, again, this is put down to seek clarification in the light of a difficulty. The purposes of Clause 33 are generally clear and we fully support them, but there is a particular difficulty that arises in certain buildings, in which night watchmen, security guards, even firemen, may be employed. This is particularly so in a building where there is a very severe fire risk, such as a department store, which may be equipped with fire doors which enable sections of the premises to be cut completely off. Clearly, it is undesirable to make it difficult for a fireman to escape if there happens to be a fire and he is on duty; but routes which ought to be open by day and during business hours in order to make it possible for large numbers of people to escape may not be necessary after business hours.

I had thought of two ways of dealing with this matter by Amendment, and I am not quite sure whether the one I am proposing is right; indeed, I shall be gratified if I can hear from the Government that it is not really necessary. The intention is to ensure that, providing there is a satisfactory escape route and that escape route is suitable, especially for the particular part of the building in which the individual may be working as a watchman or security guard after hours, all the doors" through which he might have to pass"—

which is a strange sort of phrase— so as to get out' of the premises shall not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be immediately opened by him on his way out.

This is not so necessary. It may be it could be met by making a requirement that a key must be always available, but I doubt whether what would be necessary for large numbers would be necessary for one or two people. I should be grateful for the Government's view on this problem.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shackleton.)

LORD CARRINGTON

I think the noble Lord is quite right. If the Bill were interpreted in the way he has suggested, it would be asking a great deal of small firms—and large firms as well, for that matter. I think I can satisfy him on this. The wording of subsection (1) states: while a person … is employed to work in the premises … the doors of any doorways through which he might have to pass so as to get out of the premises shall not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be immediately opened by him on his way out. That does not require all doors on the premises to be left unlocked when a few of the staff—perhaps the noble Lord, the director, working hard after everybody else has left—are still there after business hours. It does not mean that at all.

All that is necessary is that the person concerned should be able to get out of doors which afford or lead to an adequate means of escape. It would be perfectly all right, according to this clause, if he had a key in his pocket, for example, and could open the door which was the exit from the place where he was working. I think the noble Lord was concerned, too, about security. It would still be possible, for example, for a bank or a jeweller's shop to lock up the main entrance so long as there was an exit door which was left unlocked or capable of being unlocked—with the key close by it, perhaps—by the staff concerned.

I am not quite sure what the noble Lord meant in his Amendment by "business hours". But if he meant hours when premises are open to the public for business, I think he will agree that that might cause some difficulty, because there are people—for example, in banks—who would still be employed in large numbers if the interpretation that he puts upon "open to the public" is the one which I think he has. I do not think it would be reasonable to restrict the application of subsection (1) in this case. In point of fact, this clause is exactly similar to the one in the Factories Act. I keep on saying that, and I apologise to your Lordships; but it has worked very satisfactorily for some considerable time without any difficulty. I think we do not expect any problems on this particular clause, and I hope the noble Lord will feel that the requirements are fairly reasonable.

LORD SHACKLETON

I hope the noble Lord is right in his clarification. Of course by "after business hours" I did not mean after the hours at which the public are admitted; I meant after the regular business hours of the particular undertaking. If it happens to employ people by night on regular business hours, this Amendment would not affect them. None the less, I am grateful for that assurance, which seems to meet the point, and certain of the remarks made by the noble Lord made it clear to me that he had taken even some of the points which I had not made. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 38 agreed to.

Clause 39 [Appropriate authority for purposes of sections 28 to 38]:

LORD NEWTON

This Amendment is consequential on No. 62. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27. line 11. after ("30(4)(b)") insert ("and (6)").—(Lord Newton)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.

LORD CARRINGTON

I do not know whether this would be a suitable moment to adjourn. We have made comparatively good progress to-day, I think, and perhaps we might call it a day.

House resumed.