OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL

HL Deb 08 April 1963 vol 248 cc845-912

5.4 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 AIREDALE in the Chair.]

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 41 to insert the following new clause:

Special provisions as to London

".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section any premises to which section 29 of this Act applies which form part of a building from all parts of which means of escape in case of fire have been provided in accordance with the requirements of Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, and are maintained, shall be entitled to receive a fire certificate under the said section 29 and pending the receipt of the certificate no offence shall be deemed to be committed by reason of the employment of persons in any such premises in contravention of that section.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any premises if since the means of escape were provided any action has been taken of which notice would, if a certificate under the said section 29 had been granted, have been required to be given to the appropriate authority under subsection (3) of section 30 of this Act."

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends, I beg to move this Amendment. I would remind the Committee that we are still dealing with the question of fire provisions, particularly in regard to the certificates. I would also remind the Committee that Clause 29 lays it down that it shall be unlawful after the passing of this Act for the employment of certain people, either on the ground floor or upstairs, if inflammable materials are stored in the building. The procedure for granting these certificates is similar to that already in force under the Factories Act, 1961. That Act, however, makes special provision, in Section 44, for premises in respect of London.

The London County Council have already dealt with the means of escape from fire under the powers contained in Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939. In regard to other parts of the country, in particular, Scotland, other provisions are already in force and local authorities are inspecting. In fact, it may be said that in the case of London the standards required under various enactments are perhaps higher than those provided for in this Bill.

Since 1905, as I understand it, the London County Council have given approval for all new buildings, and therefore one can reasonably say that the vast majority of office or shop buildings in the London County Council area conform to the specification and are well within the requirements of this Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is really simplification. The whole burden of the Government case on the earlier stage of this Bill is that we should not do anything that will make the burden of the local authorities heavier than it will be. In this particular case we are endeavouring to lighten the position. We recognise that in the case of the London County Council area the provisions of this Bill are already in fact taking place.

If the Bill goes forward, a new certificate will, as I understand the position, be issued. I would put to the Government that, in the cause of simplicity, the buildings within the London County Council area should be exempted from the necessity of having a fire certificate issued under this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will recognise that I am one of the last to wish to see any exemptions from the provisions of this Bill. Yet I believe there is a case, in view of the fact that all these buildings are up to standard, and are carefully inspected and controlled by the London County Council, for relieving the authority of the duty of carrying out a fresh survey and a fresh issue of certificates. May I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that if this Amendment were accepted it would considerably ease the position of the employers or the occupiers of these buildings? It would relieve them of the necessity of obtaining what is, in fact, a new fire certificate in place of the one which they have already been granted on satisfying the stringent requirements of the authority; and there does not appear to be any point in the duplication of this requirement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 41 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON)

I am not at the moment convinced that it would be practicable in this Bill to follow the procedure of the Factories Act, but I do not want this afternoon to recommend to your Lordships that you should not agree to this Amendment. I should like to have a little more time to consider the noble Lord's Amendment, and perhaps he would be good enough to withdraw it now and put it down again on Report.

LORD SHEPHERD

I must respond to that suggestion because I think it is very helpful. I know the noble Lord does not mean any more than he has said, but at least he has not turned me down flat, which has been most of my experience through the long period of this Bill, although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, shakes his head. Of course it depends on the way one looks at some of the Government's replies. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 [Provisions with respect to buildings in single ownership]:

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON) moved, after subsection (7), to insert: (8) Section 22 of this Act (except so far as relating to operations or processes) shall, with the substitution, for references to the occupier of the premises, of references to the owner of the building, have effect in relation to a common part of a building to which this section applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such a part, as it has effect in relation to premises to which this Act applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such premises. (9) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in England or Wales to which this section applies is the defendant to a complaint made under section 22 of this Act with respect to the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of that section a copy of the summons issued in consequence of the making of the complaint together with a notice stating that he will be entitled to appear at the hearing of the complaint shall he served on the owner of the building in like manner as a summons falling to be served on him is required to be served and he shall, if he appears at the hearing, be deemed to be a defendant to the complaint; and the powers of the court under section 55(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 shall be deemed to include power, whatever adjudication the court makes on the complaint, to order any of the parties to pay the whole or part of the costs of either or both of the others. (10) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in Scotland to which this section applies is a defender in a summary application made under section 22 of this Act in respect of the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of that section, a copy of the application together with notice of the place, date and time fixed for the hearing of it shall he served on the owner of the building and he shall thereafter be a party to the proceedings.

The noble Lord said: The object of the new subsection (8) on the Marshalled List is to enable the machinery of making a complaint under Clause 22 (that is, dangerous conditions and practices) to be applied to the common parts of buildings to which Clause 42 applies. In other words, this Amendment would enable an authority to make a complaint to a magistrates' court about the dangerous conditions of, for example, lifts or stairways, or a boiler in the common parts; and references to the owner of the building are substituted for references to the occupier of the premises. The subsection limits the procedure to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 22(1), since the operations and processes mentioned in paragraph (c) are carried on only in the premises and not in the common parts.

The new subsection (9) provides that when a complaint is made by an enforcing authority under Clause 22 against the occupier of premises in a building to which Clause 42 applies a copy of the summons shall be served on the owner of the building, who may, if he wishes, appear at the court hearing. I think it is obvious that an owner will often have an interest in the matter, and it is only reasonable that he should be given the opportunity to appear at the hearing if he so wishes. This Amendment meets a suggestion made in the course of debate in another place. The new subsection (10) is merely an adaptation for Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 9, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Carrington.)

LORD CHAMPION

I think these new subsections are wholly welcome to us. The only question I would ask is: do they, where there are staircases, and so on, in common use, place the responsibility clearly on the owner, without any question of divided responsibility between him and the various occupiers?

LORD CARRINGTON

As I understand it the noble Lord is perfectly right. The onus in respect of the common parts of the premises is placed on the owner and not on the various occupiers.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

There is an Amendment identical to No. 68, which is No. 72, and perhaps it would be convenient for me to refer to them both together. Subsection (6) of Clause 29 requires a fire certificate issued with respect to any premises to be kept in the premises so long as it is in force. In the case of buildings to which Clause 42 or Clause 43 applies, however, the fire certificate is sent to the owner of the building or the owner of the part of the building in which the premises are situated. Subsection (9) of Clause 42 and subsection (7) of Clause 43 provide that a copy of the fire certificate shall be sent to the occupier of the premises concerned. It is therefore necessary to adapt the requirements in Clause 29(6) to provide that the copy of the fire certificate shall be kept in premises comprised in buildings to which Clauses 42 and 43 apply. Generally speaking, the fire certificate itself will be kept by owners in their own offices, which may often be at a distance from the building which inspectors will be visiting for the purpose of enforcing the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 21, at end insert ("and section 29(6) of this Act shall apply to the copy instead of to the certificate").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 [Provisions with respect to buildings plurally owned]:

LORD CARRINGTON

This is an exactly similar Amendment to the one I have just moved, except that it relates to Clause 43 and not to Clause 42. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 36, at end insert— (6) Section 22 of this Act (except so far as relating to operations or processes) shall, with the substitution, for references to the occupier of the premises, of references to the persons who, between them, own the building, have effect in relation to a common part of a building to which this section applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such a part, as it has effect in relation to premises to which this Act applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such premises. (7) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in England or Wales to which this section applies is the defendant to a complaint made under section 22 of this Act with respect to the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1) (a) or (b) of that section a copy of the summons issued in consequence of the making of the complaint together with a notice stating that he will be entitled to appear at the hearing of the complaint shall be served on each of the persons who between them own the building in like manner as a summons falling to be served on him is required to be served and he shall, if he appears at the hearing be deemed to be a defendant to the complaint; and the powers of the court under section 55 (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 shall he deemed to include power, whatever adjudication the court makes on the complaint, to order any of the parties to pay the whole or part of the costs of all or any of the others. (8) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in Scotland to which this section applies is a defender in a summary application made under section 22 of this Act in respect of the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1) (a) or (b) of that section, a copy of the application together with notice of the place, date and time fixed for the hearing of it shall be served on each of the persons who between them own the building and they shall thereafter be parties to the proceedings."—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

This is a paving Amendment for the next one, which perhaps I might discuss at the same time. Subsection (5) of Clause 29 states that a fire certificate issued with respect to any premises shall be sent to the occupier of the premises. Subsection (6) of Clause 43 provides that in the case of plurally owned buildings references to the occupier of the premises in the provisions relating to fire precautions shall be replaced by references to the persons who between them own the building. These two Amendments provide that in the case of buildings to which Clause 43 applies the fire certificate shall be sent to the person who owns the part of the building where the premises are situated. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 39, after ("precautions") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 41, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 43 and insert— ("(b) for references to the occupier of the premises (except the reference in section 29(5)) there shall be substituted references to the persons who between them own the building; and (c) for the reference in the said section 29(5) to the occupier of the premises there shall be substituted a reference to the person who owns the part of the building of which the premises consist.")—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

This is consequential on Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 48, at end insert ("and section 29(6) of this Act shall apply to the copy instead of to the certificate ").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CARRINGTON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 38, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45:

Power of the Minister to grant exemptions from certain requirements of the Act

45.—(1) The Minister may by order exempt premises of any class from all or any of the requirements imposed by the following provisions of this Act, namely, section 5(2) and sections 6, 9 and 10, in cases where, in his opinion, it would, by reason of special circumstances, be unreasonable to require compliance with the requirements or requirement from which exemption is granted.

(2) An exemption under this section may be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions and without limit of time or for a specified period.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "without limit of time or" and to insert "shall be granted". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment, and with the Committee's permission I will also speak on Amendment No. 76, since they go together. We now enter the really important part of the Bill, for it is clearly recognised that the effect of this Bill will largely depend not only on the enforcement of the provisions by the Minister or the local authority but also on the possible exemptions. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who on Thursday said it was not the intention of the Minister to grant exemptions on a wide basis; that they would be restricted to those premises where in fact it was practically impossible for these provisions to apply.

I would refer the Committee to the fact that in subsection (1) the Minister will have power to exempt premises of any class from all or any of the requirements. I freely accept that, perhaps in the initial period, a fairly wide latitude may have to be given to the Minister in regard to exemptions, although we have had the assurances of the Minister that he will be reluctant to grant these exemptions. I would refer the Committee to subsection (2), which reads: An exemption under this section may be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions. I do not at the moment raise any objections to that; I can see the difficulty of the Minister in granting the exemption. He may or he may not in fact be able to lay down conditions. I hope that he will, because if exemptions are given the Minister could say, "All right, you cannot comply; but there is something that you can do to improve the working conditions of the people."

Now I come to the real issue—namely, the words: and without limit of time or for a specified period. Obviously, in regard to a specified time I have no quarrel; I fully accept that the Minister may make these exemptions conditionally or unconditionally, and certainly for a specified time. But my friends and I strongly object to the fact that in this Bill at this early stage the Minister is able to grant exemption without limit of time. This is extremely wide ranging. It might well mean that the Minister could exempt a whole range of office or shop premises for ever. I think that is utterly wrong, and I hope that the Government will agree with me.

Perhaps that is not what they mean by the words "without limit of time"; but a reading of the Bill gives the impression that an exemption could be given indefinitely without any regard to the development of conditions. Therefore, in the Amendment we suggest that instead of the words "without limit of time" the Minister, in granting exemptions, should not, at this early stage of the Bill, and perhaps when a lot of lessons will have to be learned, grant these wide-ranging exemptions to all classes of premises for longer than two years. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 4, leave out ("without limit of time or") and insert ("shall be granted").—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD DENHAM

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has argued that exemptions should not be granted indefinitely to any class of premises, and if the Amendments we are discussing were accepted the Minister's power to grant exemptions to classes of premises would be limited to a maximum of two years at the end of which he would have to review the case and issue a further exemption order if one were justified. It might be as well to re-state the purpose of the powers in Clause 45. Where there is clearly a particular type of premises where any of the specified requirements (minimum space, temperature, sanitary conveniences, and washing facilities) appear unreasonable, the advantages of exempting such premises as a class are that the occupiers of that class of premises know where they stand, equitable and uniform treatment is secured, and the time of enforcing authorities is saved by cutting out the issue and review of individual exemption certificates.

As to the argument that a period of two years is in any case long enough for any class of premises to put their affairs in order, I invite the Committee to consider the case of offices and shops in hamlets with no water main. The provision of the main is quite outside the power of the villagers. The Minister might make an order exempting all such premises from the running water provision where mains water is not available in the immediate locality. I see no harm in making such an order indefinite; if mains water is run into a particular hamlet, the order will by definition cease to apply to offices or shops in the locality. I have no doubt that there will be other examples where this power might be applied, although it will be used sparingly. Moreover, if an order is made which is not "self-cancelling" as in the example I have just given, I can give the assurance that my right honourable friend will keep it under review, but I do not think it is sensible to require such orders to be re-issued every two years in all cases.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was worried lest exemptions should be granted under this clause in cases where it would probably be reasonable to give exemption only for a short period. There are a number of cases where to require compliance with the provisions specified in this clause might be unreasonable—in regard to certain classes of kiosk it would be impossible to do this. But I am prepared to give the noble Lord an undertaking that exemptions will not be given for an indefinite period in cases where it would be reasonable to require compliance. In view of this rather limited assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD CHAMPION

May I ask the noble Lord what machinery will be used for keeping this matter under continuous review by the Minister? So often that phrase is used, and so often it means precisely nothing. I wondered whether there would be some machinery set up which would ensure a periodic review of cases of this sort. If so, I should have thought that the noble Lord has to some extent met my noble friend's representations in this matter.

LORD DENHAM

I am afraid I cannot help the noble Lord, Lord Champion, over this point at the moment. It is the intention that these cases will be kept under review, but details of the precise machinery are not available at the moment. I will let the noble Lord know.

LORD SHEPHERD

I think we are going to be in some difficulty because we have these two clauses. Obviously, I cannot do anything in regard to Clause 46 at the moment, but I can speak about it, because the Minister, when he replied to me, dealt with the position of shops within a hamlet—the difficulty that there may be no water main, and therefore it would be too much to expect that within a period of two years the position would be rectified. I frankly did not envisage exemption of that type of case by the Minister. This was really a case of premises and not of a class. When one talks of "class" one thinks perhaps of hairdressing establishments or butchers' shops; one does not necessarily think of a particular butcher's shop or a particular hairdresser's shop. That becomes a premises. When one is considering exemptions for a type of premises that has no water supply, I cannot see how the Minister will be in a position to consider granting an exemption, above all else at the end of a period, or to say whether it is reasonable that the premises should now comply with the regulations. I should have thought that when one was dealing with the hamlet the exemptions would be the concern of the local authority intimately concerned with the problem.

I have carefully considered Clause 45 and cannot think of any type of classification where the Minister would give exemptions. It seems to me very difficult to think of any type of business of which one could say that overwhelmingly throughout the country, "This classification of office or shop is excluded from the provisions of the Bill". The noble Lord, Lord Denham, said that a shop in a hamlet with no water mains falls within a particular classification and that it should not have to provide sanitary or washing facilities, but I believe that the granting of that type of exemption should fall on the local authority rather than on the Minister, because the local authority would be aware of any changes which take place.

I come back to the point that where an exemption is granted without limit of time, unless the inspectors are very active, particularly those in the Central Inspectorate, it may be that the provisions of this Bill could well be complied with but people will be reluctant to do anything about it, and I do not believe that the Minister would be aware of the changed circumstances. The noble Lord, between now and the next stage—and I will not press this Amendment now—might tell us what the Minister means by "class of premises", because it should not go out from this Committee that that classification means hamlets or hamlets of a type. If premises in these hamlets or villages are to be exempted because water does not at the moment exist, then it should be the responsibility of the local authority to grant the exemption and to cancel such exemption when water is supplied, and should not be within the province of the Minister.

LORD DENHAM

The sort of exemptions about which I have been talking can be dealt with either as a general class by the Minister, under Clause 45, or, as regards a particular place, under Clause 46 by the local authority. With regard to the use of the words "class of premises", I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 88(5) which says: The definition of a class of premises or persons for the purposes of any regulations or order under this Act may be framed by reference to any circumstances whatever.

LORD SHEPHERD

I may be dim—I do not know—but the last reference the noble Lord has given does not help me. However, perhaps between now and the next stage this point may be considered. I would emphasise, however, that where possible the Minister should not be the main arbiter as to what exemptions are given, and that the local authority, with full knowledge of affairs locally, should decide whether or not it is within the ability of the occupier to comply with the conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 [Power of authorities who enforce Act to grant exemptions from certain requirements thereof]:

LORD CARRINGTON

I beg to move Amendment No. 77, which is only to make way for the longer Amendment No. 80. The purpose of these two Amendments is as follows. Clause 46 deals with the power of enforcing authorities to grants exemptions to individual premises from certain requirements, and subsection (5) sets out part of the procedure for making an application for an exemption certificate. The subsection states that the application should be made on a prescribed form but does not specify to whom the form should be sent.

The purpose of these Amendments is quite simply to identify the appropriate authority.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 44, after ("made") insert ("to the appropriate authority").—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.37 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (8): and a copy of that certificate shall be sent to the Minister's officer appointed under section 57 of this Act.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is relatively simple, and deals with those exemptions that may be granted by the local authority. In the other place the Government conceded the very valuable point in Clause 57 that there should be a Central Inspectorate which would have certain duties laid down by regulations. Its main purpose is to create uniformity in the application of this Bill throughout the country—a very important matter when one considers that there will be 1,700 authorities involved.

The purpose of this Amendment is to explore the way in which the Government propose that the inspectors to be appointed by the local authority shall pass information to the Central Inspectorate. At the moment we have to depend upon the issue of a regulation. I put forward the suggestion that when a local authority grants an exemption under this Bill a copy of the certificate should be sent to the Minister's officer—that is to say, the person appointed under Clause 57—for his information. From the information flowing into the Central Inspectorate one will be able to see broadly how the various local authorities are dealing with the problem and the extent to which exemptions are being granted, and in time a fairly general pattern will emerge as to how the various local authorities are administering this Bill, particularly Clause 46.

I appreciate that this may involve both local authorities and the Central Inspectorate in a considerable amount of detail and paper work, which is something I personally should like to avoid. But I hope the Minister will concede that when local authorities grant exemptions under this Bill they should inform the Central Inspectorate either as a certificate is issued or at stated periods, perhaps giving an analysis of what has been granted and the reasons for the granting of exemptions. As I have said, the purpose of this Amendment is merely to explore the type of machinery which the Government propose to adopt, and to see that the Central Inspectorate will be able to carry out their duties of bringing about uniformity throughout the country.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 20, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD NEWTON

I should like to repeat something which I said in this connection during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. When I was referring to the powers given to the Minister under Clause 57, I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247 (No. 56), col. 994]: While these powers should give the Minister all that he needs to ensure that he Bill is enforced in a satisfactory and uniform manner, they will not be used to make routine inspections of local authority arrangements. I went on a little later to add: I should make clear that he"— that is, the Minister of Labour— has no intention of exercising his powers in a way which would tend to undermine the independence and responsibility of local authorities. In other words, it is not intended to use the Central Inspectorate as a running check on administration by local authorities. I really do not think that any useful purpose would be served by having copies of exemption certificates sent to the nearest inspector appointed under Clause 57.

However, under Clause 59 annual reports have to be made to my right honourable friend by local and fire authorities, containing such information as he may require. This will include information about the number of exemptions granted from particular provisions of the Bill, and it will be possible by this means to keep a check on the way in which exemption powers are being exercised in different parts of the country. I think that should meet substantially, if not in total, one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has in mind. I should also just mention that Clause 46(6) ensures that employees will be informed of applications for exemptions, and will have the oppor- tunity of expressing their views to the relevant authority. So I hope I have convinced the noble Lord that in fact his Amendment is not necessary to achieve what I think he really has in mind.

LORD SHEPHERD

I must say that I am not convinced in this matter, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that he reads the requirements of Clause 57. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, in reply to me, said that it was never the intention of the Minister—that is, the Minister of Labour—to dictate to local authorities the manner in which they carry out the provisions of this Bill, particularly with regard to exemptions. But if the Minister would be good enough to read Clause 57(1)(a) he will see that here is a clear case where the Minister is in fact going to lay down regulations as to the manner of the discharge of those duties and of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act on inspectors appointed by local authorities. Here is a case where the Minister, by regulation, is going to tell the local authority inspector how he should proceed with his duties.

I welcome this particular clause and I shall come back to it on a later Amendment. But it is no use for the Minister to come here this evening to say that the Government do not propose to set up an organisation whereby the Central Inspectorate will be aware of the general proceedings by the local authorities under this Bill, such as on the granting of exemptions, merely on the ground that the Minister does not wish to interfere—I shall not use the word "dictate" because that is not what I mean—or to use initiative to see that there is this general uniformity. It is no use for the Minister to use that as a reason for not accepting the probe that I was making, when in Clause 57 the Minister is taking powers to tell an inspector appointed by a local authority about the manner in which he shall carry out his duties.

If the Minister has these powers to make regulations with regard to the inspectors, I should have thought it was quite right, particularly at this early stage of this Bill, and particularly if the Government wish to have uniformity, that all the time essential information should be leaving the local authority to go to the Central Inspectorate. It is only then, surely, that the Minister will be aware of the proceedings under this Bill. I think it would really be unsatisfactory if, after this Bill had come into force, things could be going wrong, there could be lack of uniformity, that there could be some areas which were applying this measure fully in the interests of the worker and other local authorities which were doing nothing about it, and yet the Minister should wait, and Parliament should wait, for at least eighteen months before they were aware of the proceedings.

I should have thought that what mattered in the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill was not only the activities of the local authority and their inspectors, but the close working between them and the Central Inspectorate. To me, this is of cardinal importance. There should be a form of partnership between the Government's inspectors and those of the local authority. Both will have a lot of information to give each other. I do beg the Government, if they cannot make a gesture this evening, at least to consider this particular point carefully. It is made for no other purpose than to try to make this Bill effective as quickly as possible over the whole of the country.

LORD NEWTON

Of course, my right honourable friend will rely so far as possible on informal guidance. The noble Lord will note that power to make regulations is permissive. Clause 57(1)(a) says that the Minister may make regulations, et cetera. If regulations are used, I think they will deal with general matters and not with the detailed supervision of individual exemption certificates. But quite apart from that, I think it is one thing to give a general direction as to how a certain duty should be carried out; it is another to come along and snoop, and see whether what you have said is being observed. That is where I think we want to draw a line of distinction. As I say, it is not proposed to suggest that local authorities will not carry out their obligations, nor to employ a Central Inspectorate to keep a running check on them. What the Central Inspectorate will do will be to discover how, over the country as a whole, the various powers of the local authorities are being exercised, and to treat co-ordination in that way.

LORD CHAMPION

It seems to me that what we must do is to ensure a reasonable uniformity as between one local authority and another. As a magistrate, one is always running into difficulties because one's court is doing something a little differently from some other courts a little distance away. You fine £5 for exceeding the speed limit, while in another area the fine is £2. That always seems to me to bring magistrates' courts into some little disrepute. If in this matter of granting exemptions you have one exemption, or form of exemption, granted by one local authority and the adjoining local authority does not grant such an exemption, you will have this difficulty as between one local authority and another.

I am sure that my noble friend is quite right in trying to secure that, somehow, reports will be made which will enable the Minister perhaps to bring pressure upon local authorities to try to secure a reasonable degree of uniformity. If that can be done under the Bill as it stands we shall be perfectly happy; but, if not, we hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister will look at this matter and put down suitable Amendments. Certainly I regard this as having some importance, because of this difficulty that one runs into in the courts.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DENHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 25, after ("force") insert ("in relation to the premises").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CARRINGTON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 11, at end insert— ("(14) For the purposes of subsection (5) of this section. 'appropriate authority', in relation to an application for the grant or extension of an exemption of any premises from a requirement imposed by section 5(2), 6, 9 or 10 (1) of this Act,—

1. (a) where the authority who, by virtue of section 52 of this Act, have power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement (or, where the application is made by virtue 862 of subsection (12) above, the authority who, by virtue of that section would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force) is other than a factory inspector, a mine and quarry inspector or a person authorised under subsection (3) or (6) of the said section 52, means that authority;
2. (b) where the authority who, by virtue of the said section 52, have power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement (or, where the application is made as aforesaid, the authority who, by virtue of that section, would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force) is a factory inspector or a person authorised under section 52(3) of this Act, means the factory inspector in charge of the district in which the premises are situate;
3. (c) where the authority who, by virtue of the said section 52, have power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement (or, where the application is made as aforesaid, the authority by, by virtue of that section, would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force) is a mine and quarry inspector or a person authorised under section 52(6) of this Act, means the mine and quarry inspector in charge of the district in which the premises are situate.")—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 [Information for employees]:

On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

May I draw my noble friend's attention to one phrase in subsection (2) of Clause 50? The last words of that subsection, refer to books or leaflets prepared under the auspices of the Minister". This seems to me to be a somewhat strange phrase to find in an Act of Parliament, and I wonder whether it would not be better to have the books or leaflets either "prepared" by the Minister or "approved" by him. At the present moment, it seems to be extremely vague what his function will be.

LORD CARRINGTON

I will certainly look at it, although I think it is clear what it means. It means that the Ministry, in one way or another, are going to prepare simple booklets to explain what will happen under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I do not think my noble friend need worry too much, but I will certainly look at it.

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52:

Authorities who are to enforce Act

52.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to enforce within their area (and for that purpose to appoint inspectors) the foregoing provisions of this Act and regulations thereunder—

1. (a) except sections 28 to 38 and regulations under any of them; and

(5) It shall be the duty of the London County Council, as regards office or shop premises forming part of a place of public entertainment within the administrative county of London other than such a place occupied by them, to enforce (and for that purpose to appoint inspectors) the foregoing provisions of this Act and regulations thereunder, other than provisions or regulations which it is their duty to enforce in their capacity of a fire authority under the Fire Services Act, 1947.

5.54 p.m.

LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1), after "enforce" to insert: , or, in respect of premises occupied by themselves, to comply with,

The noble Lord said: In dealing with this Amendment No. 81, I should like also, with the permission of the Committee, to speak to Amendments Nos. 83 and 85, which also deal with Clause 52. By Clause 52, local authorities, non-county borough and other district councils, as well as county borough councils, are to be responsible, except as regards fire precautions, for inspecting most of the premises covered by the Bill, but in subsections (3) and (4) it is proposed that certain premises, including offices occupied by local authorities themselves shall be inspected instead by the Ministry of Labour Factory Inspectorate. It does not seem to me reasonable that, because there may be some doubt as to the efficacy of inspection of their own premises by the very smallest councils, these doubts should be allowed to determine the decision as to enforcement in relation to local authority premises as a whole.

Under existing legislation local authorities inspect their premises for certain purposes—for example, their catering establishments and their public slaughterhouses, under the Food and Drugs Act, and also under petroleum licensing legislation. The standard of inspection adopted is invariably a rigorous one as the authority are anxious to set a high standard. The suggestion that local authority premises should be subject to external inspection derogates, I suggest, from the status of local authorities as responsible bodies, which has long been recognised by successive Governments and is expressed in the Report of the Local Government Manpower Committee. In the Bill it is proposed that Government offices should be inspected by Government inspectors, and I suggest that equal confidence should be placed in local authorities. There is surely no difference in principle between the two cases.

In particular, there seems no reason at all why one local authority should not be responsible for inspecting the premises of another local authority within its area. This situation arises not infrequently where the offices of a rural district or county council are situated in the area of a borough. Also, offices in county schools would, under the Bill, be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate, when they could well be inspected by officers of the district council in whose area the school was situated.

In Committee in another place an Amendment was put down which, if carried, would have had the effect of transferring the responsibility for inspection of local authorities' premises to the local authorities themselves, and it received support from both sides of the Committee—indeed, no objection was expressed to it. But in reply to the debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour drew a distinction between the provisions in this Bill and those in other legislation under which local authorities inspect their own premises for the protection of employees, saying that there were none of these provisions in existing legislation. I suggest that this distinction does not affect the general argument. He went on to say, however, that he would be prepared to consider, without commitment, the possibility of putting down an Amendment at a later stage which would allow local authorities to inspect their own offices, and on this understanding the Amendment was withdrawn. A similar Amendment was moved at the Report stage, but the Government expressed a view similar to that expressed on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and again the Amendment was withdrawn. I wish to pursue the matter further on the grounds that I have already put forward.

The Association of Municipal Corporations informed me that they find it hard to believe what was stated in this House: that the majority of members of the National and Local Government Officers' Association would prefer their offices to be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate rather than by their own colleagues—who would, after all, be members of the same Association. Whether or not the Act has been complied with will be a simple question of fact, and it would be impossible in practice for a local authority to decline to comply with the Act after one of its own officers had shown it to be in default. In the last resort, the Minister could take action under Clause 60 which was introduced at the Report stage in another place and gives the Minister of Labour a default power.

The first of the Amendments to Clause 52 set down in my name is designed to overcome a technical objection to the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill by an authority against itself by providing that, instead, the authority shall comply with its provisions in respect of premises occupied by itself. The second and third Amendments remove from subsection (3) the premises specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) inclusive and the premises of provincial police authorities in paragraph (f) and have the effect of bringing them within the scope of local authority inspection rather than inspection by the Factory Inspectorate. It will be noticed that all these premises are local authority premises of one kind or another except those in paragraph (d) occupied by probation committees, in respect of which there seems no good reason why the Factory Inspectorate should act.

During the Second Reading debate in this House the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren (who has spent a lifetime in local government in this country, and for whose opinions one must have the greatest respect), after paying great tribute to the work of local authorities, gave reasons for thinking that in the interests of general co-ordination, guidance and advice the provisions of the 13ill relating to central inspectorates are desirable. In spite of what he said I still hold to my dislike of the growth of this central bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, also on Second Reading, denounced my views and was kind enough to describe them as "absurd", and to say that how anyone in the 20th century could talk like that left him puzzled. In spite of those strictures, I still hold these views and I am, not unreasonably, going to keep them; in fact, the Association of Municipal Corporations also holds them.

I would like just to add this comment: it is true that in experience of local government in this country I must yield to the two noble Lords who expressed these views. I have not spent my lifetime in local government: I have spent my lifetime abroad. But I have some experience of administration, and I know something about what I may call the psychology of mistrust. As an illustration let us look at it this way: suppose we were dealing with some place in Africa. I think I can reasonably say that noble Lords opposite would immediately jump up and say, "You must allow people to learn. The only way to learn to exercise responsibility is to have it given to you." They would urge that people in Africa, far less qualified than the local authorities in this country, should immediately have the authority to work out their own destiny. It seems to me curious that when one comes to deal with the natives of England apparently you cannot trust them; you must have a central inspectorate; you must tell them how to do things. Yet they are better qualified, by knowledge, experience and tradition, and by surrounding example, than some of the people thousands of miles away to whom we are told we must always give authority the moment they ask for it. I think that is a not unreasonable comparison, and I do suggest that the local authorities cannot be expected to live up to the responsibilities which are increasingly given to them unless they are trusted to do the work themselves and to operate the Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 13, at end insect (", or, in respect of premises occupied by themselves, to comply with,").—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD BURDEN

I sincerely hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. There are over 300,000 professional, technical and clerical staffs employed by local authorities which vary in size and responsibilities from the powerful and financially-strong county councils down to the small urban district councils. Obviously, the office accommodation varies in character. As I know from my own local government experience, there are excellent offices; on the other hand, there are local authorities where, to put it mildly, the office accommodation is not up to modern standards. We ought not to lose sight of the fact that this vast body of men and women are employed by elected councillors, and these elected councillors would, if the noble Lord's Amendment were carried, also be the employers of the men or women who had to inspect the offices. If this Amendment were carried, no body of employers in this country would be put in the same position as that of the local authorities: namely, the judges as to whether they will or will not comply with the conditions laid in this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.

What the noble Lord is asking, in effect, is that 300,000 men and women, the largest body of men and women engaged in a vocation, should be contracted out of the provisions of the Bill, and that it should be left entirely to the discretion—I use a colourless word—of employers as to whether or not the workers would enjoy the modern standards in office accommodation which this Bill endeavours to lay down. The men or the trade union or association of the men who would be responsible for carrying out the inspection of their own offices would feel it an invidious duty imposed upon them to report that their employers were not conforming to the law; and those employers would be left to decide whether or not they would comply with the law.

Also, I am authorised to say that the National and Local Government Officers' Association, knowing far more than I do of the conditions of offices right throughout the country, welcome this Bill and ask your Lordships not to put them outside its provisions. They ask you to allow to stand what the Government have provided, and to reject what is put forward by the noble Lord, believing that it would be a reactionary step and defeat what the Association has advocated for years—better office accommodation for the men and women in the employ of local authorities.

LORD MILVERTON

May I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down? How does he excuse Government offices for being inspected by Government inspectors? Why not local authority offices inspected by local authority inspectors?

LORD BURDEN

I say briefly that no body of men ought to be judge and jury in their own cause.

LORD NEWTON

I think we must all recognise that every occupier of premises to which this Bill applies would like to inspect his own premises. That is perfectly understandable. We discussed the principle behind these Amendments during Second Reading, and in view of what I said about this subject during Second Reading I cannot believe that my noble friend Lord Milverton will be surprised that I have to advise your Lordships to reject his Amendments.

I should like to explain the legal difficulty which is inherent in the Amendments. They require that local authorities shall comply with their legal obligations. But surely such a provision is unnecessary. The obligation to comply with the law already rests on local authorities, as it does on other owners and occupiers. The question we have to decide is whether local authorities should be left merely with the duty of compliance with the law or whether we should make some provision for enforcement. If any such provision is made, it can be done only by some outside agency, and in practice the Factory Inspectorate is the most suitable body for the purpose.

The Government's view is that it would be wrong to make no provision at all for enforcement in local authority premises. My noble friend has argued, as he did on Second Reading, that local authorities enforce other Acts in their own premises, which is true; but none of the other Acts is in any way comparable with this Bill in dealing extensively and intimately with the conditions provided by the authorities for their own servants. That is the point of distinction, and I suggest that it is a fairly valid one. No doubt authorities will make every effort to comply with the requirements of the Bill, if it is enacted; but, as I said on Second Reading, it is desirable that, in their own interests, they should have the opportunity of showing that they have done so.

My noble friend recognised the fact that county councils, for instance, will find themselves inspected by borough or district councils. He seemed to think that that did not matter, because sometimes their premises were already inspected by another local authority; but in this case it would be inspection by another authority to see whether they were providing for the health, safety and welfare of their own employees, and I cannot see many county councils taking kindly to that sort of situation. For all these reasons, I must advise your Lordships that my noble friend's Amendments are not acceptable.

LORD MILVERTON

I am disappointed at the reply, but, in view of the determination of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.17 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD had given Notice of two Amendments relating to inspectors, the first being in subsection (1), to leave out "and for that purpose to appoint inspectors". The noble Lord said: After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on a previous Amendment. I cannot help feeling that the Amendment I now move, and Amendment No. 89, to which I shall also speak, with the permission of the Committee, become of major importance. Let me remind the Committee of what the noble Lord said. He said that it was not the intention of the Minister in any way to interfere with the local authorities who will administer this Bill when it becomes an Act. Clause 52 places upon local authorities responsibility for enforcing the Bill. It is well recognised that none of the provisions of this Bill will be of any use unless there is effective enforcement, and we recognise the formidable task that is being laid upon the local authorities and the inspectors they appoint.

I suggest that in the early stages special qualities would be required of the inspectors—tact, understanding and firmness. They must understand that much can be done by persuasion. We should not wish local authorities or inspectors to wield the big stick, and take matters to court: that type of action would arise only when persuasion, and perhaps leadership of the rest of the community, have failed. The essential inspectorate which the Government have set up has met much of our disquiet as to how 1,700 local authorities would enforce the Bill uniformly throughout the country. But, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I must say that I am becoming a little unsure about whether the Government intend to use this central inspectorate in the way indicated in another place. It seemed to my friends there that this essential inspectorate should be virile and strong, out among the local authorities endeavouring to co-ordinate, to give assistance and guidance, and to do all things possible to make enforcement of these provisions by local authorities successful as quickly as possible.

Under this clause, the local authorities have power to appoint inspectors. Some noble Lords on this side of the House—and, I have no doubt, some noble Lords on the other side—would have preferred to see the inspectors appointed in the same way as factory inspectors are appointed under the Factories Act, 1961. Other noble Lords—and perhaps they are in the majority; certainly they are on this side—support the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the operation of this provision should be by the local authorities and that the inspectors to carry out that duty should be appointed by the local authority.

My first criticism of Clause 52 is that it has the appointment of inspectors put in brackets, as though it were a last afterthought. It certainly clearly lays down that it shall be the local authority who are responsible, but the mere appointment of inspectors is dealt with as if it were an afterthought and is placed in brackets. We on this side believe that the real effect of this Bill will depend primarily upon the quality of the inspectors appointed. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should look at the Shops Bill of 1957 (if he has it before him), which went through this House, but failed in another place. There we have this provision that the local authority should appoint the inspectors set out with a considerable amount of prominence.

I suggest that this inspector has to be a man of authority and responsibility. If we are to give this appearance, first the Bill should clearly indicate that we regard the appointment of inspectors as of major importance. The Gowers Report—noble Lords are no doubt familiar with its contents—found that some local inspectors appointed by local authorities to inspect shops under previous legislation were such gentlemen—no doubt they are very worthy gentlemen—as a car park attendant, as a mayor's mace bearer. These may be worthy gentlemen, but hardly the right type of men we shall obviously require in this case if this Bill is to proceed with expedition. I would, first of all, beg the Government to give importance to the appointment of inspectors in the Bill.

There is no doubt as to the qualifications of these inspectors. I have not stated the requirements in my Amendment, but it is something which perhaps we could look at at a later stage. Again, the Shops Bill of 1957 said: The Minister shall have power by regulations in regard to the qualifications of the inspectors. I think there is a valid point that, particularly in those areas where there will be a large number of shops and offices to be dealt with, an inspector should not only have a qualification but should be provided with the time and facilities for him to carry out his operation. Therefore, I would ask the Government and your Lordships to accept the first part of my Amendment No. 89; that is, to give real prominence to the local authority appointing the inspectors, and to make it clear in the Bill that we as Parliament look to the inspectors for the enforcement of this Bill when it becomes an Act. It will be through the inspectors that this Bill will be enforced and will be a success, and I think we should clearly recognise that matter in this clause setting out the appointment.

The second part of my Amendment No. 89, to which I am speaking, is that the notice of appointment of such inspectors and their office should be published in the local paper. I think it must be recognised that the name of a man appointed to a position of such importance to the well being of hundreds of thousands of workers should be published in the newspapers, and should be clearly on the records of the local authority, so that any person who may have a matter to raise with the inspector will have no difficulty in knowing who is the inspector and where he can be found.

I come now to perhaps the most major part of the Amendment, and that is in regard to the dismissal of inspectors. My honourable friends in another place had an Amendment down, both on Committee and Report, that no inspector appointed under this Act should be dismissed from his appointment without the approval of the Minister. I think it is true that such provisions have been inserted in previous legislation. I am not going to suggest that there are any, or many, local authorities that would allow perhaps personal interests to affect their decisions on the appointment or the terms of tenure of an inspector; but I feel bound to say that there are a number of local authorities, perhaps most of them, who have on their council men and women directly involved in this type of business—shopkeeper and small office. I should not like to say that they would put their personal interests before their duty; but if there is a suspicion that they could, or would, I think, in fairness to the councillor and also to the inspector, we should ensure that if any dismissal does take place, the confirmation of it should take place in the full light of council and should not be something done in the back rooms by a committee.

I think it is true of most local authorities that when staff are dismissed they are dismissed by a decision of a committee and the minutes are before the full council for approval. But often these minutes slip through without any comment; and there are certain local authorities which deliberately delegate these powers to a committee. I would refer the noble Lord once again to the Shops Bill of 1957. Here the Minister had power to lay down the terms of tenure of office of the inspector. May I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the words of the noble and learned Viscount who now leads the House in defence of this proposition in your Lordships' House on March 5, 1957? He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 220]. As regards tenure, I think that my noble friend has probably overlooked the wishes of the inspectors themselves. Inspectors are particularly vulnerable to victimisation. This particular power in Clause 51(2) of the Bill"— that is the one I have just referred to— was put in at their request, in order to protect them from local victimisation as a result of their activities … victimisation by people whom they have inspected. Such people may have certain powers. They may be able to lobby local interests against the person who has inspected them. Public health inspectors are rather analogous officials, and they have been protected. … It is, therefore, at the request of the inspectors, or potential inspectors, that this clause was inserted. It was not designed for the purpose of limiting freedom of local authorities, but for protecting the integrity and freedom of the inspectors.

Those, as I say, are the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and I think we should take considerable note of them, because they are of great importance. The noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, who formerly sat on the Woolsack, speaking in 1952 at the Conference of Inspectors said: I am putting in the proposals for the enforcement of the health, welfare and safety of non-industrial premises a no-dismissal clause so as to avoid any shadow of suspicion that inspectors are being victimised simply by doing their duty. I would not overburden the case by saying that there are many local authority councillors who would use their position if they found that the inspector was making life too difficult for them. But in the interest of the local authority councillor and of the inspector, I think we should make it perfectly clear that there must be valid grounds for his dismissal, and that his dismissal must be carried out in the open.

When drafting this Amendment, I considered whether to use the same phrase as my friends used in another place: that dismissal should be subject to approval of the Minister. I felt that there was some point in the case made by the Government, that the Minister should not be called upon to intervene in what might appear to be semi-domestic matters. I take the view—and my friends share it—that where a local authority dismiss an inspector, such a dismissal should be approved by the authority sitting in public meeting. That would mean that someone on behalf of the inspector, perhaps a member, would be able to get up and query the position. I feel also that I should draw the noble Lord's attention particularly to Clause 58, which is the clause on restriction of disclosure of information. Suppose that an inspector has been dismissed for something that he has seen, and has run foul of the local authority (I am putting this purely as conjecture) and is dismissed. As I see it, under this clause he would then be prohibited, under pain of a very heavy tine or imprisonment, from disclosing what he saw in those premises. As I see it, this clause will prohibit any inspector, if he suffers injustice, from producing the evidence to substantiate the case he has made and which has resulted in his dismissal. Therefore, if Clause 58 is to stand, I think the utmost protection must be given to the inspector, so that he can carry out his duties with integrity without any fear from any quarter.

I hope that the Government will respond in this matter. I say that particularly in view of the fact that my friends in another place did not press their Amendment on the Report stage that dismissal should be referred to the Minister, because they believed that Clause 57 was a good deal stronger in intention than the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has given us to understand this afternoon. The noble Lord stressed the word "may"—he said that the Minister "may" make regulations. We gather from that that the Minister may not make regulations. These words in paragraph (a) were the words that made my friends decide not to proceed with the Amendment that I have just described. They felt that it was quite clear, from the regulations with respect to the manner of discharge of those duties in the exercise of the powers, that the inspectorate were to be active and that there was to be co-ordination. It would appear to us that the local authority inspector would be able to work closely with the central inspector, and if there was any case of dismissal, or any dispute between him and the local authority on his duties, or on the way he was carrying out the duties, at least he had some form of appeal to an impartial body. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has given us an indication, rightly or wrongly—I will not attack him on that—that there is doubt whether these regulations will be made, particularly in regard to paragraph (a).

I beg the Government to consider very seriously the position of these local inspectors. First of all, let us give them prominence and importance, because it is on their shoulders that will lay responsibility for the enforcement of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I hope that the Government can see that the question of qualifications will arise; that if these provisions are to be enforced the inspector should be of sufficient calibre, responsibility and the other qualities I mentioned, to see that the various office and shop occupiers will comply with these proceedings. Above all else, let us see that there is no doubt and no fear of victimisation, and that, whatever local authorities do outwardly and clearly, there is no doubt at any stage if local authorities are in dispute with their inspector on the carrying out of those duties. I believe this is of cardinal importance, and I hope the Government can meet us in this matter. I beg to move. Page 42, line 14, leave out the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)

6.35 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

I had not realised when the noble Lord put his Amendment down that he had deleted the first Amendment: "(and for that purpose to appoint inspectors)" because he was worried that it was not put prominently enough in the Bill. I can give him an assurance that this is only a drafting point. Of course, there is not the smallest intention of playing down the importance of inspectors. Indeed, as the noble Lord himself said, the enforcement of the Bill depends to a large extent on whether or not you have inspectors, and whether or not the inspectors are efficient. I can give him a positive assurance that the fact that the words are in brackets is only a Parliamentary draftsman's way of putting it. I do not believe there will be much difference in practice whether the words are in brackets or not, so long as the inspectors are appointed and they are good inspectors. I will give him an assurance that it is the Government's intention, not only to see that the inspectors are appointed, but that they should be good inspectors.

On the other two Amendments, I see what the noble Lord is trying to do and I have some sympathy with what he said about his new subsection (3), but I would ask him to bear the following points in mind. On subsection (2) there is this point. It would require the publication of a notice of an inspector's appointment in local newspapers. So far as I know, there is no similiar provision in any other Act dealing with local government inspection, and certainly not in the Local Government and Public Health Act. So far as I know, there has been no demand whatever for any such provision. If the noble Lord's aim—and I understand this aim—is to make certain that the administration of the Bill by local authorities receives adequate publicity and people know who the inspectors are, and so on, I should have thought it was already met in Clause 59, to which my noble friend Lord Newton referred on a previous Amendment, and which relates to the annual reports which authorities are obliged to submit to the Ministry. If anybody wants to know the names of their local inspectors, all they have to do is to inquire at the town hall or local council office, and they will produce the answer. I should have thought it was going a little far to oblige local authorities to announce these appointments in the newspapers. So far as I know, there is no other comparable provision in any Act dealing with this sort of matter.

With regard to the noble Lord's last point, that dismissal should require the approval of a local authority in public meeting, here again, in spite of what he has said, my information is that there is no precedent in any Act of this kind that such a provision has ever been made before. I would put this to the noble Lord. I quite understand that he is worried that there might be cases in which there would be victimisation, but I put the other side of it to him. I think there could be cases in which it would be contrary to the inspector's own interest that his affairs should be discussed in public session by a local authority. I could imagine that it might be extremely embarrassing to him, and in many ways it would be very unfair that this should be done. So I think that one has to balance the possible injustice done to the inspector—though I will come in a minute to how I think we could remedy that—against the possible injury which could be done to his own personal position in some instances. I should have thought that this was the sort of matter which was best left to the machinery of consultation and negotiation between the local authorities and the staff associations concerned. I am sure that it is not the right sort of provision to put in a Bill of this kind and it would certainly place restrictions on the independence of local authorities, which I should not have thought was entirely reasonable, although I quite see what the noble Lord is trying to do.

I should like to make one last point before I sit down. I think that the noble Lord opposite has read too much into what my noble friend Lord Newton has said about Clause 57. Certainly I agree with him that it was on the understanding that the powers in Clause 57 would, in cases of the kind that the noble Lord has mentioned, be appropriate to safeguard the inspector's position that his friends in another place did not press their Amendment; that is still my understanding of the matter. I hope, with those observations, that perhaps the noble Lord will be satisfied that, on the whole, it would be better not to do what he suggests but that the Government have every sympathy with the motive that he has in mind.

LORD SHEPHERD

I should be less than honest if I did not say that I am still not entirely happy, but I will come to that in a moment. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but this is a subject of very great importance. First of all, with regard to Clause 52, I think it should be altered. Merely to give the stress upon the importance that we relate to the inspector, I think the Bill should say that Parliament expects that the local authority shall appoint inspectors to ensure the operation of this Bill within their area. Perhaps it might be called a drafting point. I am sorry that I misled the noble Lord with my first Amendment, which was really paving the way. My noble friends feel that we should quite clearly show in the Bill the importance we attach to the position of the inspector. As I see it, other legislation has given this prominence to this official.

In regard to the question of address, I somehow remember a debate in which such provision was granted. Whether it was the Weights and Measures Bill of two years ago I do not know, but I remember a debate in which it was clearly acknowledged that, for the assistance of people, the name and address of the inspector should be made known. Whether it should be done by a newspaper announcement, for example, in the local gazette, or whether his name should be prominently displayed in the council's offices, I do not mind, but I think it should be displayed somewhere, so that he is not some official who is unknown to the general public but known merely to some committee. His name and address should be readily available to the public.

I appreciate the point which the noble Lord made in regard to a public meeting of the local authority. This certainly was a point that entered my mind, but I could not think of any other way of bringing the dismissal of an inspector into the open, to provide that it should not be something done behind closed doors, and to show clearly that there was no case of victimisation. This inspector is in a very delicate position. It has been clearly recognised by many people involved in local authority work and in the enforcement of local authority legislation. I think we should give him far more protection than the Bill gives at present. Perhaps we could do it more readily if in Clause 57(1)(a)—we might consider this at the next stage of the Bill—where it is stated that the Minister may make regulations with respect to the manner of the discharge of those duties and of the exercise of the powers …", we inserted the words which appeared in the Shops Bill and for which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, fought so strongly: terms of tenure of office of the inspector", In other words, I would suggest that, while we may not say that a dismissal has to be accepted by the Minister or local authority in public assembly, it is right that we should give the local inpector the opportunity for an appeal in the event of his dismissal and if he thinks he has been a case of victimisation. This may be a point which could be dealt with, as the noble Lord said, by consultation between the interested bodies, but I think that this inspector should have a right of appeal if he has been dismissed for something for which he feels his dismissal was wrong, because he merely carried out his duties under this Bill and ran foul of some particular organisation or person. Therefore I ask the Government seriously to consider giving this right of appeal to the local inspector if he is dismissed.

The noble Lord did not answer the point I made in regard to Clause 58 and the position of an inspector if he is dismissed. Could he use the information which was available to him to substantiate his position in open court? As I understand it, this clause precludes him from use of any of this information other than in criminal proceedings in pursuance of this Act. If the inspector were to take action in court because he believed he had been dismissed wrongly, could he use that information? The words "in pursuance" are here. I do not know how one should read it, but it seems to me one could use the information only in a law case connected with the operation of this Bill. The noble Lord is on the edge of his seat.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Before my noble friend answers that point may I say that, as I understand it, Lord Shepherd, is contemplating going back to this matter at another stage so all is not lost if the provisions of Clause 58 are not dealt with entirely at the moment. I have an Amendment down on Clause 58 and I wish to raise this whole matter when it comes to this point, but, in fact, what the noble Lord has said has rather widened the scope of what I had in mind on that point. Perhaps there will be more time when we come to Clause 58 for my noble friend to discover the answers on this.

LORD CARRINGTON

I do not want to discover the answers; I know the answers. I did not think it was very sensible to discuss Amendments on Clause 58 when we were discussing Amendments on this clause. What I was going to say to the noble Lord was that, as my noble friend behind me has an Amendment on Clause 58, perhaps we could discuss it then. You never know; the Government may even be prepared to accept an Amendment of this kind.

On the major issues which the noble Lord opposite has raised, I think the prominence of the inspectors is really a drafting point. I am reliably informed that the law takes no notice of punctuation; and if one read any Act drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen one would accept that without the smallest difficulty. But I do not think it really matters. The point is that inspectors have to be appointed; local authorities have to appoint these inspectors, and they are going to be men of substance. I think that that ought to satisfy the noble Lord. But on the real point at issue which is worrying the noble Lord, I should have thought it would be much better to leave it as I suggested. The sort of case he has in mind would happen very rarely, if at all. There are very few councils which consist of only one class of person or of only one political Party. I think that victimisation of the kind he suggests would be most unlikely. If there were such a case, it surely could be dealt with either by the ordinary consultations I have in mind or under Clause 57, which in another place was recognised to be partly for this purpose. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

I have no intention at this stage of pressing it, because I recognise I have still two more opportunities of dealing with this matter. Perhaps I might say this to the noble Lord. Would he not accept that, when a man has been put in a position by duty to enforce the provisions of this Bill, if there were any possibility that his dismissal arose from what he was doing under this Bill he should have at least a right of appeal on his dismissal? I think it is as simple as that. It may be a fact that there would be only one or two cases a year, perhaps only one or two cases in a generation, but even if that were so that is quite sufficient cause in principle to have this requirement. This is obviously a matter we shall have to pursue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.52 p.m.

LORD DENHAM moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (c) to insert: (d) premises comprised in premises used for the purposes of a school which, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, is maintained by a local education authority ".

The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of Clause 52 provides that the Factory Inspectorate shall enforce the Bill in premises occupied by a county council or local authority. The attention of my right honourable friend has been drawn to the fact that this provision could result in a confusing division of responsibility for enforcement in office and shop premises in schools maintained under the Education Act. As drafted, the provision would result in factory inspectors being responsible for enforcement in schools established and maintained by a county council or local authority—that is, the county schools—and for local authorities to be responsible for enforcement in other schools maintained by a county council or local authority—that is to say, the voluntary schools. This division of responsibility is unsatisfactory and the Amendment has the effect of providing that all maintained schools which form part of the public education system should be inspected by one enforcing authority, the Factory Inspectorate. This problem does not arise in Scotland, and therefore a Scottish adaptation of the Amendment is unnecessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 42 at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that enforcement of the Bill in fuel storage premises on land owned by the railways shall be carried out by the Factory Inspectorate. We think that this is a very reasonable arrangement and one that should make for economy in administration, because factory inspectors will be enforcing the Bill generally in railway premises and will therefore be visiting the areas in which these railway coal depôts are situated. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 24, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 29 and insert: ("(d) railway premises; (e) office premises occupied by railway undertakers for the purposes of the railway undertaking carried on by them and situate in the immediate vicinity of the permanent way (not being office premises comprised in hotels); and (f) fuel storage premises owned by railway undertakers").—(Lord Denham)

LORD SHEPHERD

I understood that the Government conceded the point that fuel depoôts in the wholesale sense would be covered by this Bill. These may, of course, be close to refineries which are covered by the Factories Act. Perhaps the Minister would consider between now and the next stage whether that class of premises would equally be covered by the factories inspector. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that point.

LORD CARRINGTON

Fuel storage premises owned by the railways would be covered, if that is what the noble Lord has in mind.

LORD SHEPHERD

It has been conceded that fuel depôts for the wholesale section of the supply of liquid fuel would be covered. Many of these are, in fact, close to oil refineries which are covered by the Factories Act. I think perhaps there is a case for dealing with their premises in a similar way to those of railways: to save time and bother, to have it carried out by one inspector.

LORD CARRINGTON

Perhaps I might look at that point.

LORD HAWKE

Before we leave this Clause, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me if he has made up his mind how many persons are going to be involved in this inspection. We are to have inspectors, and presumably deputy inspectors, and their staffs. Their task will presumably be a good deal bigger than the task of the factory inspectorate, because I imagine that the number of offices, shops and railway premises is greater than that of existing factory premises in this country. The noble Lord has also mentioned that they are to be men of substance. I gather, from what I can understand of the Bill, that if the cost of this department falls on the ratepayer it will be reimbursed by the taxpayer. Perhaps the noble Lord would confirm that. Nevertheless, we as taxpayers should like some idea of how many persons we are likely to be employing to police this scheme.

LORD CARRINGTON

I could not say how many inspectors there will be. But I think the noble Lord must recognise that, if we have a Bill of this character, containing some fairly complicated provisions, and placing statutory obligations on a number of people to do things which the House as a whole considers to be desirable, then it will be necessary to see that the Bill is enforced; and there will necessarily be inspectors to do it. When I said "men of substance" (I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, means) I meant that they would be good inspectors. If there were too many inspectors I think we should be in the happy position in this House of relying upon the inspection of these inspectors by my noble friend.

LORD HAWKE

Surely it must be a new principle for the Government to set on foot an organisation without having an idea of what it is going to involve, in persons or cost.

LORD CARRINGTON

The Minister may have a good idea how many there will be and what they will cost. I must confess that at the moment I have not. But I will try to find out.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.57 p.m.

VISCOUNT FURNESS moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "London County Council" and insert "council of a county". The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment, which may not be quite clear from the drafting, is to ensure that the position of theatres and cinemas throughout the country will be the same. Under the law as it stands at present, theatres are inspected by county councils; and that, of course, includes the councils of county boroughs. Under this Bill offices in theatres come in for inspection. In the territory of the London County Council and in county boroughs this will mean that the same authority will inspect both the theatre qua theatre or cinema qua cinema and the offices, and that outside these areas the borough councils or urban district councils and rural district councils will inspect the offices in those theatres or cinemas. This Amendment is designed to have the effect of putting all the inspection on the county council.

This point was raised in another place and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, in answering a similar Amendment, said that the only effect of the Amendment would be to bring together under the same authority responsibility for enforcing the Bill and for licensing in residual county areas where we must accept that theatres and cinemas are not so numerous. The information I have is that there are 1,420 cinemas in rural district and urban district council areas, and only 1,000 in the areas of the L.C.C. and county boroughs. So I should have said that the balance was on the other side. There are also many theatres—about 75—out- side the county borough areas and the L.C.C. These include such theatres as the Arts, at Cambridge, the Chichester Festival Hall, at Chichester, the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, at Stratford, and the Theatre Royal, Windsor. So I would have thought that this was not quite such a small point as it may seem at first sight, or as indeed the Government have indicated at first sight. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 33, leave out ("London County Council") and insert ("Council of a County").—(Viscount Furness.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I wish to support what my noble friend Lord Furness has said about this. The information I have is that there are rather more than 75 theatres outside the London County Council and the county borough districts. My information is that there are about 130, as well as the 1,400 or 1,500 cinemas. In another place, I think at the later stages of the Bill, the Government resisted this Amendment, largely on one ground, namely, that if it were to be accepted that in the case of these places of public entertainment the county council should be the enforcement authority for the purposes of the Bill, then that authority would have to go through all the rigmarole of returns, reports, inspections and everything else that are involved in respect of the county district councils under the Bill as it now stands. I wonder whether in fact this is a sound answer.

In the first place, the county councils will be doing the fire inspection in any event, because it seems to me that Clause 52(1)(a) exempts the county districts from dealing with these matters of fire and they will be dealt with by the county authorities. In any event, if the county authorities are going to do the licensing of the cinemas and, on behalf of the Lord Chamberlain, the inspection of the theatres, it may be that in order to have these two matters dealt with by the same authority it would be better to do it the other way round. Perhaps my noble friend will consider whether these two duties in regard to theatres and cinemas which are now done by the county council should not be done by the rural or urban district council. It is absurd that there should be two authorities dealing with exactly the same building and, in a large part, looking for exactly the same points, with their own inspectors going round regularly, and I have no doubt frequently, in order to see that these things are correct. Cannot my noble friend see that there is some point of substance in this, and try to get the matter dealt with by one authority, so that the position is quite clear?

LORD CARRINGTON

I think that there are difficulties about the suggestion of my two noble friends behind me, though it is perfectly true that this Bill does make a special case of the London County Council. In spite of what Lord Furness has said, I hope he will agree that the case of London is quite different from that of the rest of the country and that the balance of advantage is against extending the Bill in the way he proposes. The original reason for making special provision for London was that the L.C.C. as agents of the Lord Chamberlain under the Theatres Act, 1843, inspect many theatres in their area. It was therefore thought right to make the Council the enforcement authority in offices and shops in London theatres—and I would emphasise that we are talking only about offices and shops in cinemas and theatres—instead of giving this duty to the metropolitan boroughs (who would otherwise be the appropriate enforcing authorities under the Bill).

As the result of discussion in Standing Committee in another place, my right honourable friend agreed that it would be logical to extend the L.C.C.'s duties under the Bill to other places of entertainment which are inspected by them. There is a good, practical reason for this provision, as my noble friend Lord Furness has agreed, in that London has by far the largest concentration of theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainment in the country. It is the concentration which is important, rather more than the numbers. The main concentrations outside London are found in the largest towns, which are county boroughs and so are in any case enforcing authorities under the Bill. The Amendment therefore affects only those areas administered by county councils outside London. I take the point that these councils have an interest in places of entertainment as licensing authorities, but I think that this interest is not normally exercised with the aim of employee pro- tection in mind; it is usually from the point of view of the public, and is therefore not related to the purposes of the Bill.

The effect of my noble friend's Amendment, as my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said, would be to impose a new range of duties on county councils for a limited area of employment—just the shops and offices in the cinemas and theatres. They would, as a result, in spite of what he said, have to maintain registers, issue and review exemptions, compile statistics and send in annual reports to the Minister. There is the further complication that in quite a number of county areas the county councils already delegate their powers to the lower tier authorities—that is to say, the district councils, which are, of course, the enforcing authorities under this Bill. In other areas magistrates may themselves he the licensing authorities for places of public entertainment. The position is really rather confused. I think that, apart from the main argument, it would be clearer to keep the pattern of enforcement which is laid down in the Bill. Certainly, in my opinion it would be a mistake to complicate further this pattern of enforcement. I do not think that any conflict will arise between the requirements of the licensing authorities and the enforcing authorities under the Bill in places where they are not the same. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will see that the balance of advantage lies in leaving the Bill as it is.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I wonder whether, before my noble friend Lord Furness replies, my noble friend Lord Carrington could explain a little more about this delegation, because this is what I suggested might be the answer. Is it a widespread custom of the county councils to delegate to the county districts the duties of licensing and inspecting cinemas and theatres? Because, if so, it will presumably be no more difficult in other places. If they all did it, it would be the same authority in every case.

LORD CARRINGTON

I could not give the number of authorities who do this, but I am informed that quite a number of them do. I am not suggesting, by any means, that they all do it. It may well be a way out if my noble friend could encourage them all to do it.

VISCOUNT FURNESS

I am not wholly convinced by the reply of my noble friend, although he has gone fairly far to meet me by suggesting, even indirectly, that more county councils should delegate to lower authorities. As I say, he has not wholly convinced me. But I do not wish to press the point any further, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 53 to 57 agreed to.

Clause 58 [Restriction of disclosure of information]:

7.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to leave out "pursuant to this Act" where that phrase first occurs. The noble Viscount said: This raises the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was talking about earlier this evening in connection with Clause 52. I think I am right in supposing that what has happened in the case of the drafting of this clause is that the precedent in the Factories Act, 1961, has been used, but it has been adapted in such a way because of the nature of what goes on in shops and offices that the clause, as it now stands, looks very much more frightening than it is meant to be. The similar section in the Factories Act prevents the inspector from disclosing any information he obtains in a place he has gone into in the course of his duty regarding any manufacture or trade process or trade secret. I have a strong suspicion that Her Majesty's Government mean only the same sort of information to be dealt with by this particular clause. On the other hand, the drafting as it now stands is by no means clear, and even if this is what is meant it is certainly not what the clause now says.

As I understand it, the clause would not prevent any factory inspector from giving evidence in a negligence case where somebody had fallen down stairs which he had seen earlier were defective and had reported to his authority. It would be impossible for the plaintiff in such a case to call the factory inspector to give evidence about the defective staircase if the factory inspector was going to be liable to these large penalties or imprisonment. I am certain that that is not what the Government meant. I put down the Amendment to allow him to give such evidence in any civil case, quite apart from one which arose out of this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, extended the case to the instance of the inspector finding himself in front of something which might not be a legal inquiry or court but an administrative tribunal of one sort or another, before which he was arraigned and was defending himself against dismissal. This would not be covered by my Amendment, and I think that it should be covered. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be able to say that something can be done about this clause so that its enormous width can be restricted to what I am certain, was intended in the first place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 24, leave out ("pursuant to this Act").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD CARRINGTON

My noble friend is quite right in his interpretation of this clause and these words as they now stand. Indeed, this point was raised in another place during the passage of the Bill. It was brought to the attention of my right honourable friend that this principle might work rather unfairly, in exactly the same way in which my noble friend has suggested, either to the disadvantage of the employer or the employee, or both. My right honourable friend is looking into this question, and I will bring to his attention not only the observations made by my noble friend behind me, but also what Lord Shepherd said earlier about this matter and the dismissal of inspectors. Although my noble friend will realise that I cannot commit the Minister of Labour to an acceptance of an Amendment on the lines that the noble Viscount has suggested, I will give an assurance that we are studying the matter very carefully, and, if my right honourable friend is satisfied with the arguments advanced this afternoon, he will put down a suitable Amendment at a later stage.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am very grateful to my noble friend, and I hope that it will result in something. If this clause remains as it is now written it is going to have a very deleterious effect when it comes to the point, because it is impossible to restrict the simple word "information" in the way my noble friend says is intended. It is going to lead to all the trouble which both Lord Shepherd and I foresee, and I very much hope we shall see an Amendment on Report stage; and I hope it will be an Amendment which is wider than mine, which does not cover the other point I mentioned.

LORD SHEPHERD

We are fearful of some of the interpretations by the Courts, even by the House of Lords sitting judicially, as to what will be understood to be the object of the Bill and what they themselves will read into it; there might be some disparity. Therefore, this clause should be seriously looked at. My own feeling at this stage is that I would not mind asking the Government to delete this clause from the Bill. Perhaps that is asking too much at this late stage, but I hope we shall see at Report stage—or, if possible, before Report stage—the Government's proposals on this very important clause.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 agreed to.

Clauses 59 to 69 agreed to.

LORD DENHAM moved, after Clause 69, to insert the following new clause:

Local authorities' inspectors in Scotland to have power to institute proceedings in certain cases

".—(1) An inspector appointed under this Act by a local authority may, if duly authorised in that behalf by a general resolution of the authority, make a summary application under section 22 of this Act with respect to any premises with respect to which the authority have power to enforce any of the provisions of sections 4 to 21 of this Act; and for the purposes of this subsection the expression 'premises' includes a common part of a building to which section 42 or section 43 of this Act applies.

(2) An inspector appointed under this Act by the authority discharging in any area the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act 1947 may, if duly authorised as aforesaid by the authority, make a summary application under section 32 of this Act with respect to any premises in that area with respect to which they are the appropriate authority for the purposes of that section."

The noble Lord said: As your Lordships are aware, Clause 22 of the Bill provides a procedure under which an enforcing authority can make a complaint to a magistrates' court (or in Scotland a summary application to a sheriff) in respect of dangerous conditions and practices in premises. There is a similar procedure under Clause 32 as regards means of escape in the case of fire. It may be of the greatest importance that action under these provisions should be taken without delay. It has been suggested that it might be necessary for a local authority inspector to submit a particular case to the next meeting of a council or committee to obtain authority to take proceedings under these clauses, with an inevitable lapse of time before a complaint or summary application could be made.

After studying the point, my right honourable friend is satisfied that in England and Wales powers exist in the Local Government Act, 1933, and the London Government Act, 1939, which enable a local authority to authorise one of their officers to exercise their discretion for the purpose of instituting proceedings under Clause 22 or Clause 32 in a particular case. So far as Scotland is concerned, however, the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 are insufficient for this purpose, and for that reason my right honourable friend has proposed this new clause which will give similar powers to Scottish local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 69 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 agreed to.

LORD MILVERTON moved, after Clause 70 to insert the following new clause:

Appeal from refusal of court to make order

".Where on a complaint made to an appropriate court under subsection (1) of section 22 of this Act the court fails to make an order under that section the complainant may appeal therefrom to a court of quarter sessions."

The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause was the subject of a good deal of discussion in another place, and I can deal very briefly with it. Clause 70 provides that a person aggrieved by an order made by a magistrates' court on determining a complaint under the Act may appeal therefrom to a court of quarter sessions, but no provision is made in the Bill for appeal by a local authority in cases where a court refuses to make an order. It is not even clear whether local authorities have a right of appeal upon a question of law by way of a case stated to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division.

The new clause would enable local authorities to appeal against a decision of a court under Clause 22, whereby it declined to make an order for putting down dangerous conditions and practices. Local authorities and their officers are, in the nature of things, more knowledgeable about the matters with which the Act deals than are justices, and therefore they should at least be given a second chance to make their case.

In another place this matter was raised in Committee, when the Minister of Labour made the following comments: It is arguable that enforcing authorities should have the same rights of appeal. The circumstances are different, however, from the case of a citizen who is wanting to appeal against a decision which may involve him in considerable expense or even shut down his office or shop. That case is different in kind from that of the enforcing authority wishing to pursue its disagreement through the magistrates' courts. This is an issue which is between the administration and the administered, and I think the cases are quite different. I do not think we can argue that there is necessarily an equal right of appeal in these circumstances. That is what the Minister said, but the explanation is not an entirely convincing one. While it is proper that an employer should have a right of appeal, because his business may be involved or because he may incur expense, it is equally proper that the enforcing authority should have it also, in the interests of the persons who are employed in the relevant premises.

This matter was raised again at Report stage in another place, when a new clause was moved similar to that here proposed. It will be noticed that in another place there was disagreement about the state of the law on the point. To meet the objections stated in col. 478 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, for March 6, I have inserted in the new clause a reference to subsection (1) of Section 22, and thus debarred local authorities from appealing against an interim order which might have resulted in the case appearing before the court four times. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 70 insert the said new clause—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD CARRINGTON

As my noble friend has said, this is a matter which was discussed at considerable length in another place. As he also said, legal opinion on both sides of the Chamber took one view, while some lay members took another view. I am afraid that much of what I say will be in effect what my right honourable friend the Minister said in answer to this Amendment in another place. Because, though it may on the face of it seem equitable that equal rights of appeal should be given to both parties, in fact I should have thought that their interests were quite different. The decision of the magistrates' court against the occupier hits his interests—he has to do something and spend money, or even shut down his premises—and in accordance with general principles about appeal from courts of first instance, he is given the right of appeal to a higher court. But the enforcing authority is not in the same position; he has not got to do anything or spend any money because of the decision. He finds that the court has not upheld his judgment on an enforcement issue.

In my view, particularly in view of this difference, there is not a sound case for going further in this Bill than we did in the Factories Act. In factories, the safety issues are likely to be even more important than those under this Bill. One must have finality in enforcement at some point, and, so far as the enforcing authority is seeking to impose his will on the occupier, the Government's view is that finality should be at the stage of the magistrates' court, as in the Factories Act.

But the enforcing authority may have an alternative course of action, if a magistrates' court refuse to make an order under Clause 22. Under that clause an enforcing authority may apply to a magistrates' court for an order which, for example, might prohibit the use of premises in a dangerous condition. If the enforcing authority can satisfy the court that the immediate danger exists, no doubt the court will make the necessary order. If the court is not satisfied, then it will be open to the enforcing authority to charge the person concerned with an offence under the Bill, if a contravention of some other provision can be proved.

So I do not think it right that the appeal to quarter sessions should be extended in the way intended by my noble friend in moving this new clause. I hope that, in view of the explanation I have given, he will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD MILVERTON

In view of the explanation which the noble Lord has given—

LORD SHACKLETON

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I ask the First Lord whether there are further powers? I am not a lawyer, but if, in fact, the court take a decision which is unsatisfactory, and which according to legal advice is unsatisfactory, is there some process of a writ of mandamus or something of that kind? I do not know whether this is a matter on which a lawyer can give us advice. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, could help us. Because I understand there are times when magistrates take decisions when it is open for the matter to be taken to a High Court on a writ of mandamus.

LORD CARRINGTON

The noble Lord has torpedoed me amidships. I do not know. I will find out and let him know, but I am afraid I could not, without notice, answer that question.

LORD MILVERTON

In view of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.

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

Clause 73 [Amendment of Section 125 (1) of Factories Act 1961, and provisions consequential thereon]:

LORD NEWTON

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 11, at end insert— ("(3) The reference in the said section 125 (1) to a warehouse in or for the purposes of which mechanical power is used, being a warehouse neither forming part of a factory nor belonging to the owners, trustees or conservators of a dock, wharf or quay, shall be construed as not including a building occupied by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale or a part of a building so occupied where goods are so kept.")—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 74 to 78 agreed to.

Clause 79 [Mode of service of notices under this Act]:

8.27 p.m.

LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (3), after the third "given" to insert "or sent by post". The noble Lord said: This is a small, drafting Amendment, really, although one needs to have some temerity to suggest that one can make a drafting Amendment. The clause deals with the mode of service of notices under the Act, and under subsection (1) a notice to a factory or mine or quarry inspector may be delivered to him or left at or sent by post to his office. Under subsection (2), a notice to any other person may be similarly served; but the wording of subsection (3) is such as clearly to suggest that notice to a corporation or a firm has to be served or given in person and cannot be sent by post, which is unreasonable on the face of it.

The Ministry of Labour say that this interpretation is incorrect. They say: We are advised that a notice under subsection (3) can be served by post on a corporation or firm. Subsection (1) deals with the service of a notice on a factory or mine or quarry inspector. Subsection (2) deals with the service of a notice on any person other than a factory or mine or quarry inspector, and states that it may be served or given by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his proper address or by post. Subsection (3) deals with the service of a notice in the case of a corporation or firm and states whom it may be served on. But it may be served by reference to subsection (2), that is, by post, if required.

To me, with my limited intelligence, the Minister's explanation is not readily intelligible. It would appear from a straightforward reading of the clause that "any such notice" in subsections (2) and (3) means "a notice required or authorised by or by virtue of this Act" the rest of subsection (1) not being incorporated by the phrase "any such notice". The Amendment which I am moving should settle this question beyond doubt. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 5, after ("given") insert ("or sent by post.")—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD HAWKE

I should have thought this was a very dangerous Amendment to accept. In this country we are in the habit of assuming that letters posted will reach their destination. But there are many capital cities in the world where it is extremely unusual for letters to reach their destination, at any rate within reasonable time, and where other methods of personal delivery have to be put into action if it is desired to make certain that a package arrives. There are other parts of the world where the post is reasonably reliable but service by post is very easily avoided; and to cope with that problem there is a service known as "registered acknowledgment due." I should have thought that although it is rare for postal packets to get lost in this country, it can happen: and the loss of a postal packet serving notice on somebody to do something failing which he can incur some penalty, is usually a serious matter, which makes it advisable that any service by post should be done by registered post.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Or by recorded delivery, which is rather a cheaper and more efficient way of doing it these days.

LORD NEWTON

Much as I should like to, I doubt whether I can please both my noble friends Lord Milverton and Lord Hawke; but the Government certainly want to provide that notices may be served on corporations by post. We have in fact done so already in the Bill, and I hope to persuade my noble friend that his Amendment is not necessary. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 79 deal with the manner in which notices may be served and include service by post. Subsection (2) refers to a person—this is in the last line on page 56. All that subsection (3) sets out to do is to explain who that person shall be in the case of a corporation or a firm. It says that any notice required to be served on a corporation or firm may be effected by serving the notice, and that includes service by post by virtue of subsection (2). I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel satisfied. I can assure him that I am satisfied that it is all right.

LORD MILVERTON

I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I can hardly describe my state of mind as one of satisfaction, but I bow to the fact that Her Majesty's Government prefer a little obscurity to absolute clarity, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I ask whether my noble friend could at the next stage of the Bill insert something to say that all service by post must be by recorded delivery or by registered post?—because, so far as I understand it, this Bill provides for various notices that can be given, and it is most important that they should reach the would-be recipient. He is otherwise involved in penalties, and so on. It is quite impossible to provide that any package sent by ordinary post either has or has not been received. I should have thought that from everybody's point of view it would be much more satisfactory if there were some method of registered or recorded delivery.

LORD CHAMPION

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on this matter. Sitting in a magistrates' court, one is often told that notice served by post is not sufficient. Many times I have seen proceedings adjourned until the subsequent court simply because there is no proof that a summons has been served. It appears to me well that between now and Report stage the Minister should look at this matter and perhaps include the words suggested. It seems quite unfair that anyone who had not received this notice should be subject to the penalties that may well fall on him for not obeying a summons which he did not receive.

LORD NEWTON

Of course, I will consider what noble Lords have said on this point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 79 agreed to.

Clause 80 agreed to.

Clause 81 [Application to the Crown]:

LORD NEWTON

This Amendment and the following four Amendments are all consequential on Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 27, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 34, leave out the third ("and").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 35, after ("30(4)(b)") insert ("and the second reference in section 30(6)").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

I beg to move this Amendment also.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 39, leave out the third ("and")—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

I beg to move Amendment No. 100.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 40, after ("30(4)(b)") insert ("and for the second reference thereto in section 30(6)").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CARRINGTON

This Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 77 and 80, which your Lordships have already accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 3, leave out from ("onwards") to end of line 5 and insert ("and subsections (5) to (14) had been omitted; and an exemption of any such premises from a requirement imposed by a provision of this Act may be granted under the said section 46 despite the fact that the provision imposing the requirement is not in force in relation to the premises.").—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 82 and 83 agreed to.

Clause 84 [Exclusion of application to premises occupied for transitory purposes]:

8.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add at end of the clause: or before the date of the hearing of the prosecution, whichever is the earlier".

The noble Viscount said: Clause 84 was either inserted in another place or at any rate, extensively modified there. It provides a defence, not only in proceedings to recover damages but also in any prosecution for an alleged contravention of the terms of this Bill, for the person to show that his was a mobile office or shop or, alternatively, a fixed one and that in either case it was being used only temporarily for this purpose. If it is a mobile one, he may use it safely for six months; and if it is a temporary use of a permanent office or shop, he may use it safely for six weeks. If he shows that the use has stopped at the end of that period, then he is safe from prosecution.

What worried my noble friends and myself about this was what would happen if he was prosecuted before the end of the six weeks or six months. In that case it would be impossible for him to prove that the use ceased or had already ceased at the end of the requisite period, because the requisite period would not have already come to an end. Therefore, I put down this Amendment to try to clarify the matter. I must confess that I think I have in fact only made it worse, because I have placed a more stringent requirement on the person using these temporary premises in the case where it was possible to do it, and I have cut down the period he may do so with impunity.

I wonder whether it would not be better to have another look at this matter, to see whether a prosecution should not be brought before the end of six weeks or six months. My noble friend Lord Denham may say that this will be difficult in certain cases where there is a flagrant breach of the Bill, but not so flagrant as may be dealt with either under Clause 22 or Clause 32, which are not cases of prosecutions, but are subject to complaints by which an order to stop the use of the premises until the matter is put right can be obtained. In any case, I think there must be some method of dealing with these prosecutions which might fall before the end of the statutory period, because otherwise the whole object of the defence will be defeated. I confess that I am baffled how exactly to do it, but I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to look at this matter again to see whether it can be put right in some way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD DENHAM

The object of this clause is to put temporary structures or temporarily occupied premises outside the scope of the Bill. As my noble friend has suggested, it also puts them beyond the provisions of Clauses 22 and 32, which means that there cannot be any immediate action taken in case of safety standards thought to be lacking. But the sort of thing my right honourable friend had in mind with this particular clause is the temporary structure that is put up on a building site, a temporary structure at the docks or a room temporarily used as an office for much the same thing. It was thought to be necessary to exclude these temporary offices from the provisions of the Bill.

As to my noble friend's worry that the defence of a man occupying one of these temporary offices in saying that he was going to occupy it for only six months, and if he were prosecuted before six months he would not be able to have that defence, because nobody would know whether he was going to cease occupation or not, my advice at the moment is that this would not happen. If anybody tried to take proceedings under this clause before the six months or six weeks, as the case might be, I am advised that the case would be adjourned. We are looking into this point again and making absolutely sure about it. If we are wrong, we will, of course, bring in something at a later stage. But that is my advice at the moment.

LORD SHEPHERD

Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amendment, may I say this? I can see the point the noble Viscount has made for the exclusion of these premises from these provisions—six months in the case of one, and six weeks in the other. But within which period? Is it six months within twelve months, and six weeks within one year? Reading the clause very quickly, I do not see that there is any connection between the six months and six weeks with any other period. I think it would be wrong that we should create a loophole whereby you can get a temporary period of six months and close the place down for six weeks, and then move the wooden structure somewhere else.

LORD DENHAM

It says … beginning with the day on which they were occupied for that purpose. … It is for six months or six weeks from that day, as the case may be.

LORD SHEPHERD

Would it be possible for the occupier—the building site was a case the noble Lord quoted—after six months to close the place down and a week later to start it up again? Do the two six months run concurrently, or is it six months within twelve months?

LORD DENHAM

I do not think so, but I will certainly look into that point and let the noble Lord know.

LORD HAWKE

I think the point the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, visualises is of some particular rogue office employer who spends his time flitting from office to office staying five months and 29 days at each of them in order to avoid the provisions of this Bill. I really do not think that that is likely to happen.

LORD SHACKLETON

I feel that my noble friend is on to a point of substance. This is an issue which confronts anybody who is involved with administration. When a period of six months is stipulated, it is also necessary to state the period within which that six months applies. If one were to say, "in the course of any one year" it would become much clearer. My noble friend's point is surely that it would be possible, as this clause is at present drawn, to vacate such an office for one day and then reopen it. I may have misunderstood these words. I think the clause is not clearly defined, both in regard to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, or the point which my noble friend Lord Shepherd has made. I do not want to press it at this stage. I had been inclined to speak on the Question, That the clause stand part, but I understand that the Government are prepared to look into this point. It is a fact that if you are imposing a restriction you must state the period within which it applies, either by suing that it cannot be reopened again, or by saying, "not more than six months in any single year", otherwise it would be possible completely to defeat the purpose of the clause.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Before my noble friend replies, I would say that I think a number of points have emerged. For one thing, if this clause is intended to deal with items like contractors' huts, there is nothing in it which says so. It can deal with any office of any sort or kind, so far as I can make out, which is used temporarily over a period within this Bill. Secondly, if it is intended to deal with buildings like contractors' huts, does it follow that, because the hut is on one building site for five months and 29 days, and is then removed to another one, the six months then starts again? There are any number of difficulties about the definition of "movable structure"—even if, I may say, you spell "movable" with only one "e"—which have caused difficulties in other parts of the law. It seems to me that this provision is full of loopholes.

My noble friend Lord Denham further worried me because he suggested (I do not know whether this is my fault) that the words "any prosecution" also applied to the emergency measures under Clauses 22 and 32. Those, of course, are proceedings in the magistrates' courts by way of a complaint, and they deal with premises which are quite unfit to be occupied for these purposes and have to be closed temporarily until matters are put right. If this is also meant to come within the word "prosecution" it means to say that there is going to be a long period of time in which there might be a serious fire during which magistrates can do nothing about this at all. If "prosecution"—which I do not think is a term of art (although I may be wrong; and I shall look in the Magistrates' Courts Act)—means only a summons as a result of an information, then it is presumably all right; but I feel that this is another point which ought to be checked, otherwise those two provisions in Clauses 22 and 32 will not apply to those premises. I hope that my noble friend will have a comprehensive look at this clause and try to bring out much more clearly what it is intended to apply.

LORD HAWKE

I hope that, in saying he will look at these things, he will not seek to bring this whole paraphernalia of this very complicated Bill to bear on temporary huts on temporary sites.

LORD CARRINGTON

I really think that this clause is all right. I think the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, makes is answered, in that the purpose of the occupation is what matters and not the time; so that if the occupier left for a day and then re-occupied it for the same purpose it would be covered by the Bill. The time would count because of the purpose. It is the purpose which matters, not the time.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I hope, none the less, that my noble friend will look at it again. I think it is possible to take a builder's hut from place to place and use it for six months in each without offending against this particular clause.

LORD SHACKLETON

Does the noble Lord mean that the hut will be unusable for ever after if it is used for the same purpose, or if the same person uses it for the same purpose? I think that the noble Lord might take a further look at this and give a rather more forthcoming assurance than he has yet given.

LORD CARRINGTON

Of course it will be looked at again. But I think it is perfectly clear. It is perfectly clear to me; but if it is not to the noble Lord I will look at it again.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

With great respect, I think this is more complicated than my noble friend imagines; because in the case of a builder's hut there is some difficulty as to whether it is the same structure as it was in the first place after it has been taken down and put up on another site. This point has arisen in rating matters, and it becomes very difficult to say whether it is the same structure as it was before. In that case it becomes a new structure and is given six months' exemption. I do not think this is covered by the clause.

LORD CARRINGTON

My noble friend talks as if the Parliamentary draftsmen and the whole Ministry of Labour and the Government were complete fools and that he was the only person who had ever read the Bill. I do not think this is so; but I will certainly look at it again.

LORD SHACKLETON

I only think that at this late stage of the Committee the noble Lord might be a little more controlled in his remarks. It is the duty of Parliament to examine these things. It would not be the first time that Parliamentary draftsmen, who are very able people and work very hard, have missed a point. There have been a large number brought in in this Bill. I think, so far as Parliamentary draftsmen are concerned, that the First Lord has not been a successful defender of them.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.0 p.m.

LORD NEWTON moved to add to the clause. (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to a prosecution for an offence consisting in a failure to comply with an obligation imposed under section 49(1) of this Act to notify the appropriate authority that persons would be employed to work in any premises; but in any such prosecution it shall be a defence to prove that the persons in question were employed to work in the premises while they were ocupied as mentioned in the foregoing subsection.

The noble Lord said: The provisions of Clause 84, we now know, if we did not know before, relate to premises occupied for transitory purposes and do not at present provide a defence against an offence committed under subsection (1) of Clause 49. This is because the obligation in this subsection requires an employer to register the proposed employment of persons in offices, shops or railway premises before he begins to employ them. In the case of such an offence, it would not be possible to prove (as required by Clause 84) that at the time of the alleged contravention the premises were occupied for a temporary purpose during a period beginning with the first day of occupation and ending six months or six weeks later as the case may be. The new subsection proposed in the Amendment I am moving adapts Clause 84 to the requirements of Clause 49, with the result that an occupier would have a defence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 85 to 87 agreed to.

Clause 88 [Interpretation]:

LORD SHEPHERD

It is with some trepidation that I move this Amendment. It is consequential on the Amendment that the Government accepted on Clause 18. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, leave out lines 3 and 4.—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 89 [Short title, commencement, extent and repeal]:

8.57 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON moved to add to subsection (4): Provided that any such repeal of any provision of the Shops Act 1950 shall not extend to any premises excepted from the operation of this Act by section 2 of this Act.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, although it looks a harmless one, is in fact quite a substantial one. Your Lordships will recall that we spent a considerable time discussing Clause 2 of this Bill, which exempted from the provisions of the Bill premises in which only employers' relatives or out-workers work. In the course of the discussion on it, I think it must have been apparent to every one of your Lordships that this is a very peculiar, purely sentimental and rather pointless clause of the Bill. If it had been proposed to extend this exemption to small businesses of a kind for which there are powers for exemption, it would have been understandable. I would not only repeat that it seems to me quite extraordinary to limit this to this narrow group of family relations, and then suddenly find, because the wife gets ill and she has to send for her sister to work and help out, immediately the full force of the Bill begins to apply.

I think it is a pity that this clause is in the Bill, and we shall probably want to talk about it further on the Report stage. But what is more significant—and this is the purpose of this Amendment—is that certain provisions of the 1950 Shops Act which hitherto had applied to these family premises are now to be repealed. It is quite logical to repeal those particular sections of the 1950 Shops Act so far as all those premises which are covered by this particular Bill are concerned. But the family premises were not so covered, and when we look at the old Shops Act we see that Sections 37 to 39—and my remarks are mainly directed to these—had some quite important provisions which, apparently, have been worked satisfactorily, or if they have not been worked they have caused no trouble; but I suspect they have been worked and they have been a useful residual power for the last twelve years. These relate to a number of matters, some of which are covered in more detail more satisfactorily in this Bill, and in my view it would have been better if this Bill had applied to those family premises.

But I would ask your Lordships to consider what we are now removing from the Statute Book which has hitherto applied to these premises. First of all, under Section 37 of the Shops Act, 1950, there was provision in regard to providing seats behind the counter. That has always been an important part of the Shops Act and is surely just as applicable in a family business as elsewhere. If we are met once again with the argument that families can be trusted to look after their own, I would only remind your Lordships again of the number of abuses of a more acute kind which finally find their way into the courts as the result of a criminal offence. I see absolutely no reason why this perfectly reasonable provision should not apply to family shops. The provisions of that section have apparently been worked, unless the Government can show us otherwise, quite satisfactorily for twelve years.

Then there are also provisions for sanitary and other arrangements in shops. It seems to me that proper sanitation in any shop is a matter that is also in the interests of the general public. It may well be that the noble Lord can tell us that powers to cope with this are in the hands of sanitary inspectors and others. Furthermore, there are powers under Section 38 of the Shops Act to grant exemptions if this be necessary. But it is surely desirable in the public interest that there should be proper sanitary arrangements. There was also a requirement that there should be provided and maintained suitable and sufficient facilities for the taking of meals, and for washing and so on. These may seem to be small matters, but Parliament has seen fit to apply them and to incorporate them in legislation; they have been in existence for twelve years, and we have been given no reason why they should be removed.

This brings me to my final point, in which I really suggest that the Government have, to put it mildly, been less than frank. It may be that the noble Lord who is to reply can correct me on this, but I have not seen any statement of the intention not merely not to apply this proposed Bill to these particular premises, but to remove certain protections that existed in the past. It seems to me that this particular clause has passed through another place without their being aware of the implications of the particular proposal, and without discussion taking place on it. If this is really so, then unless the Government can show me that they have explained its effect and made clear that it did exempt these premises I think we should do well at this stage to pass Amendment No. 104 and give an opportunity for further consideration in another place. In my view, the Government have made a mistake in putting Clause 2 into this Bill at all; I am sure it is a nonsense. But I think they have made a bigger mistake by a lack of frankness which could almost amount to a deception of Parliament in their failure to explain what the consequences of this particular proposal were. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shackleton.)

LORD NEWTON

I think I ought to begin by saying that I really cannot accept any suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the Government have been guilty of not being sufficiently frank or forthcoming, or guilty of any deception about this Bill. I do not think he has any grounds for putting forward that complaint. The Shops Act—

LORD SHACKLETON

Before the noble Lord leaves that point, would he tell us on what occasion, and when, the effect of this was explained in either House of Parliament?

LORD NEWTON

I have no idea whether it was explained or not in the other place.

LORD SHACKLETON

Do you not read Hansard?

LORD NEWTON

I am not a Member of the other place. It is not my duty to answer for what is said or is not said in another place. What I ought to say, I think, is that the Shops Act is mainly about such matters as closing hours, hours of employment of young persons, and Sunday trading, and all those provisions will continue to apply to family shops as they do now. What the Bill does is to repeal those sections of the Shops Act which are concerned with seats, ventilation, temperature, sanitary conveniences, lighting, and washing and eating facilities, all of which subjects, as the noble Lord himself recognised, are dealt with in much greater detail either in this Bill or in the regulations which are to be made under it. It is, therefore perfectly logical to repeal the effect of the Shops Act in so far as it is only a mirror of what this Bill provides for in premises other than family businesses.

When we were discussing Clause 2 and the Amendments thereto moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I explained that the Government decided as a matter of principle that family businesses should be excluded from the scope of the Bill because they do not think it is desirable to extend the opportunities for inspectors to go into family premises. Quite obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, does not accept that. For instance, he described this principle on which we are taking our stand as purely sentimental, peculiar and, I think, unnecessary—I may have forgotten the last adjective. He is perfectly entitled to take that view, and I explained at least once when debating Clause 2 and the Amendments on it that on a matter of principle like this people can have different opinions, and they are perfectly entitled to hold them. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, took part in any of our Amendments to Clause 2.

LORD SHACKLETON

Yes, I did.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Lord did. I beg his pardon. I thought he did not. That makes my task rather easier because he will have heard what I then had to say. What he is doing by putting forward this Amendment this evening is to reiterate the arguments on general grounds for deleting Clause 2 altogether from the Bill. That is how the position seems to me. If one accepts that it is right that Clause 2 should be in the Bill, it is perfectly logical that we should repeal these sections of the Shops Act. There we are. This is a matter on which there is a difference of opinion between the two sides of your Lordships' House, and, short of repeating all my arguments over again, I do not think there is anything more I can say, except possibly this. So far as cleanliness in food shops is concerned, from the point of view of the public, this is dealt with in regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, and they, of course, apply to family businesses as to any other. So I must recommend to your Lordships that this Amendment of the noble Lord should be rejected.

9.15 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

In dealing with Clause 2 the Government have repeatedly had a very weak case. The noble Lord, Lord Newton (perhaps I may have his attention for one moment), said that the Government felt it would be wrong for them to interfere with family businesses; that it would be wrong for them to stand between a father and a son, daughter or granddaughter as the case may be, who is employed by him. The noble Lord said that again tonight. Yet, he may recall that in the debate we had on Clause 2, when we were dealing with exemptions on grounds of safety, my noble friend Lord Champion drew the noble Lord's attention to the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, where the Government exercise power even in family businesses, to see that the provisions in regard to health and safety are in fact complied with. The noble Lord cannot have it all ways.

I suspect that the real reason why Clause 2 is included is that the Government feel that if this class of premises is included the machinery of local authority will be completely and utterly swamped. We accept that there is going to be a considerable task to be undertaken. We also accept that, even twelve months after the passing of the Act, even with this period of grace, there is bound to be some time lapse before all these objectives in the classes which the Bill covers are attained. That is no ground whatsoever for completely excluding one class from the provisions of the Bill. It may take longer. It may mean that the Ministry will have power to say, "We will deal first with those that are employing people outside the family." But can the noble Lord say why, other than, a desire not to interfere with the families, the Government wish to exclude for ever, or for as long as this Act is in force, this class of business?

I can think of some businesses which are run by a widow who is being forced to employ people. People with businesses like that will be placed in a more difficult position as regards complying with these provisions than will some family businesses. Some of these family businesses are extremely prosperous. I cannot see why we should give this advantage purely and simply to a family business, perhaps to the disadvantage of a competitor who, because he employs other persons, must comply with the provisions of this Bill. The Government's case right through has not been one of consistency. I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to press this Amendment this evening. If he does, I shall be very willing to support him, in spite of the numbers arrayed against us. But, apart from what my noble friend will do, I hope that the Government will again consider this matter.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has again advanced the arguments which were advanced in the debate on Clause 2, in rebuttal of the arguments which I advanced the other day, and which I have advanced again. I doubt whether we shall get very much further simply by arguing about it. We are being perfectly consistent in resisting any attempt to bring family businesses under the umbrella of this Bill. I do not know how many members of the public at large, who are not members of family businesses, or who move in the world of local authorities, or the Factories Act or the Shops Act, know that under the Shops Act the State can interfere with family arrangements about lavatories and washing facilities. I do not know how many members of the public realise that; but I should have thought that most people who discovered that for the first time would think it wrong. I am expressing my own point of view, as one must over a matter of principle like this. I should have thought that most people who heard about it for the first time would think it wrong that the State should interfere with family arrangements about those things. In fact, I rather doubt whether these provisions of the Shops Act have ever been strictly enforced—but that is as it may be.

We have taken our stand on the belief that close members of a family who are responsible for other members of their family are likely to be as concerned about the safety, health and welfare of their relations as the State, or the local authority or an inspector. Quite obviously, noble Lords opposite do not agree about that. They have taken a rather dimmer view of family relationships, and what flows from them. They are entitled to do that. But there we are: this is a difference of opinion on a matter of principle, and I do not think it will be resolved by argument. If the noble Lords opposite wish to divide the Committee upon it, I would suggest that they do so.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am sorry, but I have to continue a bit with this argument, because I think the noble Lord must begin to realise that he is in a weak position, so far as logic, and, indeed, I would say, so far as knowledge of the 1950 Shops Act, is concerned. He is unable to tell us whether these sections have ever been enforced. I doubt very much whether the Government know how far the 1950 Shops Act is, in fact, enforced; and the argument that he thinks that it is perfectly safe to leave family businesses outside the scope of this sort of provision is an argument in favour of repealing the whole of the Shops Act in relation to the family business.

LORD NEWTON

With great respect, it does not leave them outside, and I explained that it does not in relation to hours of work, Sunday closing and things like that.

LORD SHACKLETON

Why is it that one can trust a family in regard to seats, but not in regard to the hours of work? It is an absolute absurdity. I would remind the noble Lord of some of the provisions in the Shops Act. These relate, of course, not merely to hours of work but to things like statutory half-holidays, the keeping of records, the obligation to post the Shops Act and the day off. I do not know whether they are enforced, but the Government should know. Certainly the shops inspectors should know; and I am surprised that, knowing that this Amendment was down, some inquiry was not made with regard to the operation of this section and, indeed, other sections of the Shops Act. It is not only those matters; Wages Council Orders also apply. These involve a number of technical measures, and it is clearly necessary for shops inspectors to help in carrying them out. And suddenly, for no reason that has been given to either House, these particular sections of the Act have been removed.

I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is fair to apply the whole of this Bill to a small business alongside a business which happens to be composed of members of a family. If we are wanting to achieve some sort of justice for the small shopkeeper, surely either this Act should be applied to all or there should be a general exemption of small shopkeepers. I have already pointed out that if a small butcher's shop happens to employ one assistant butcher—as, in fact, does the butcher's shop in my own village—the whole rigour of the Act would

Remaining clause agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

apply to that, and the only compulsion of this particular clause is that, if they want to be freed of the need to provide fire certificates, and that sort of thing, they would have to sack that non-family, assistant butcher.

I would suggest that either the Government were unaware of what they were doing—and this seems to be the most likely explanation—or they have totally failed to be honest and straightforward about it. Until now, no explanation has at any time been given that these particular sections of the Shops Act were to be repealed. Unless there is some explanation, or some willingness to recognise this, even though there may be very few noble Lords on this side of the House, I propose to divide the Committee. I should hope that some of your Lordships will consider the case which the Government have put forward as so weak (and this is not just an argument on families: it affects small shopkeepers of all kinds) you may consider coming into the Division Lobby with us.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Hereford, V.	Shepherd, L. [Teller.]
Champion, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Gosford, E.	Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ampthill, L.	Ferrers, E.	Mills, V.
Boston, L.	Fortescue, E.	Newall, L.
Carrington, L.	Fraser of North Cape, L.	Newton, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Davidson, V.	Hastings, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Denham, L.	Hawke, L.	Somers, L.
Derwent, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Devonshire, D.	Lothian, M.	Windlesham, L.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

House resumed.

House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.