Lords Sitting of 29 April 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich

CONGO EXCHANGE RATE
2.35 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government with regard to the official Exchange Rate in the Congo—

(1) What changes have occurred in the past two years;

(2) What, at six-month periods since the intervention of United Nations troops, have been the estimated relationship of Black Market quotations to the official rate.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, until October, 1961, all foreign currency had to be changed at the official rate of 140 Congolese francs to the £1. As from the beginning of November in that year, while this obligation was still applied to 80 per cent. of foreign currency, permission was granted to convert the remaining 20 per cent. at the free market rate of the day. This produced an average rate of about 181 francs
2
to the £1, and it has remained at about this figure ever since. So far as the second part of my noble friend's Question is concerned, Her Majesty's Government do not make any official estimate of black market quotations in foreign currency.

AID TO OVERSEAS COUNTRIES
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government with regard to the announced total of £153 million of aid and subventions to overseas countries, what proportion of this was "tied aid" and what is the considered United Kingdom labour content included therein.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, of the expenditure of £153 million on overseas aid in 1962, about £40 million was tied under the Export Guarantees Acts to the purchase of goods in the United Kingdom. It is not possible to estimate the labour content of these goods.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in view of the rather small percentage, somewhere about 25 per cent., which was tied in that way, can the noble Earl say whether the full effect of Government policy in this respect has been felt; and whether we may expect in the current and future years a much higher proportion of overseas aid to be tied in this way to the benefit of British industry?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, I think that the tendency is to put more emphasis

3
on this. Of course, a great deal of our aid is in internal expenditure in countries, which naturally cannot be tied to export of goods.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not highly undesirable in many cases to tie aid? Is it not a fact that, if aid is tied up, the receiving countries, the underdeveloped countries, often have to pay far more for the goods than they otherwise would have done? Is it also not a fact that the British Government are about the only Government in the world which do not tie their aid and have received great praise from the underdeveloped countries for that fact?
LORD STONHAM: They have also had much unemployment. Is it not the case that we are now beginning to do merely what other countries have been doing for a long time, and have in the past been suffering from not doing it?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if I may try to do my best to please both noble Lords, I think it might be to our advantage if nobody tied their aid at all. But since many other people do, I think it is inevitable that in some cases we should do the same.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I suppose the noble Earl would not be in a position to make any comment on the relationship of the interests charged on tied loans and loans which are not tied.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords, I do not think I would.
LORD OGMORE: Would it not be much better for the Government to try to persuade other countries not to tie their aid, rather than to tie our own? Is it not a fact that it is the rich countries who tie their aid, and the poor countries who have to suffer for it?
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, is it not obvious that we can do a great deal more to aid underdeveloped countries if we give tied aid than if the aid given can be spent in any foreign market?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think it is right that we should in some cases try to ensure that aid which we give to underdeveloped countries is not spent on buying industrial goods from our competitors.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl make this point quite clear—because the word "tied" has a different meaning overseas? Many people talk of "tied aid" in the sense that there are political consequences arising from it. Would the noble Earl say that there is no question that we attach political ends to the aid that we give to the underdeveloped countries?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This question is getting rather like the distinction between a tied cottage and a tied house, which are quite different things. I think the noble Lord is right in saying that we do not attach political strings to this aid; but I should like notice of any more subtle definition he has in mind.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that the absence of tying, in the sense in which Lord Ogmore referred to it, is one of the longest and perhaps more creditable traditions of British policy?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think I would. I have already said that if everybody would agree not to tie their aid, it might be to the general advantage.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the danger of interpreting these comments as suggesting that it would be unwise to tie loans, would the noble Earl not agree that it would be undesirable for this country to compete with the United States, who are prepared to give up to 40 years free of interest on a tied loan? We cannot afford to do it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that may be so.

THE COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
2.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will introduce a Bill to give the Colonial Development Corporation power to start new schemes in Commonwealth countries, and to change the name of the Corporation.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I hope that such a Bill will be introduced in the near future. We have decided to widen the scope of the Bill by covering certain other matters as well. These additional matters have not quite reached finality, though they have nearly done so.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess what he means by the "near future"? Does he mean this Session? If he does not mean this Session, may I ask him whether he means the next Session of Parliament? May I also point out to him that there has been a long delay, and that many people feel that the delay has already caused damage to the C.D.C. itself as well as to the Commonwealth countries?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I cannot accept the last point put forward by the noble Earl. I accept that there has been delay, because I remember announcing last July that this Bill would come into action. As to my definition, I can only say that it is a little nearer to the future than "the future".
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, if it is nearer to the future, is the future of the Colonial Development Corporation nearer to the future than the programme the Government are preparing for Britain in the 'Seventies?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a convenient moment after half-past three my noble friend Lord Dundee will be making a statement on the Law of the Sea.
It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Report stage of the Offices, Shops and. Railway Premises Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock, to enable the Second Reading of the Corn Rents Bill to be taken at that hour. If the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill is not concluded by 7 o'clock, there will be a Dinner Adjournment after the Second Reading of the Corn Rents Bill until half-past eight.

OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
2.45 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Premises to which this Act applies]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1). after the first "are" to insert: "subject to the next following section". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment which appears on the Marshalled List. Perhaps it would be convenient if I speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 also. The Committee stage some two or three weeks ago ended on a note of division, which meant that we were not able to pass the usual thanks and appreciation to the three Ministers in charge of the Bill. Therefore, at this early stage I should like to express our thanks to them for the manner in which they dealt with our Amendments—perhaps not always helpfully, but certainly always courteously. But when we look at the Marshalled List we can see that our time was not ill spent, for there are a number of important Amendments put down by the Government following upon that Committee stage.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the letter which he sent us dealing with a number of points that had arisen on the Committee stage, some of which we shall have to come back to. I also should like to say to Lord Carrington how pleased we were to see the Report which appeared last week, certainly that part which related to the noble Lord himself. There has never been any doubt on this side of the House that the noble Lord always gives close attention to his work and his duties, and I believe some of the consequences of the Committee stage can be attributed to the work put in by the noble Lord between the two stages of the Bill.
The purpose of these three Amendments is obviously to enlarge the scope of this Bill. The Bill at this stage deals merely with the workers connected with office, shop and railway premises. My noble friend Lord Latham in his own Amendment drew the Committee's attention to the position in hospitals, the

7
road transport depôts and other places. I particularly drew attention to the garbage collectors and sewerage workers who perform a very dirty type of job, and I endeavoured to compare their conditions with those of the workers in the mines and the factories and with those of the people who will be covered by this particular Bill.
I would again remind the House that twelve years have elapsed since the Report of the Gowers Committee, in relation to which the Government have been warm, then lukewarm, and then cool; but while they have come to the boil in the production of this Bill, it still leaves 5 million workers outside its protection. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, drew our attention to the way in which the Government regard the position of the railways as opposed to that of the road transport depôts. Here the Government are willing to lay a heavy responsibility, perhaps a heavy cost, on the railway operators in the provision of these necessities for their workers, yet they are not prepared to lay the same obligation on the road transport hauliers. The Government must face up to the fact that at some time or another these workers must be given protection. The Government must live up to the protestations they made at the last General Election that they were going to produce a workers' charter. A workers' charter means very little if it includes but a percentage of the workers and leaves a large number outside it.
I should like to draw the special attention of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to the position obtaining in the hospitals. He may have seen the report in the Nursing Times about nurses coming out of operating theatres and, because there are inadequate facilities for baths, having to go home smelling of anæsthetic. This obviously is not a very pleasant situation for those travelling in buses and trains, and certainly not very pleasant for the nurses themselves. Therefore, my Lords, I would suggest to the Government that it would be possible, within this Bill, if we increased its flexibility somewhat, for the Minister from time to time, according to his judgment, to bring in the different categories of workers who are at present excluded.
I follow again the theme of the nurse. It is a fact that the clerical staff in hospitals are going to be protected; their premises will be inspected by one of the inspectors of the local authority. In the case of the coal depôts, the persons working there will be protected and their premises will be inspected. There is, therefore, no reason why we should not see that the transport drivers connected with the coal depôt have the same facilities made available to them. All this could come if there were an increased degree of flexibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he opposed the Amendments that we moved on Committee stage, made the case that we were already taking on a considerable task. We on this side of the House have freely recognised the scope of the problem. But we also feel that with time all this can be dealt with. Perhaps the task will be heavier if the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill is carried forward quickly and to the maximum effect. Enforcement will be the major factor. Therefore we feel that if we could give this Bill a little more flexibility—because it is already flexible—by the acceptance of our Amendment, which is certainly merely permissive, it would mean that the Minister, without having the necessity to bring forward further legislation, would be able to deal by order with the various occupations that are now outside the Bill.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will freely recognise, as we heard at Question Time, that one of the major problems for Parliament is to find time for legislation. The noble Lord probably remembers the Weights and Measures Bill. Was it in 1961 that we had a full and long debate and then lost the Bill? Last year the calendar was so full that we could not get it. It is only now that we are able to get it. There was also the Shops Bill. As I see the problem of the Government it is this. If they wished to bring forward protection for these 5 million people, who are divided into many small occupations and may not rank in importance and size, and who are certainly not vocal, the Government would find time, or would be willing to find time, for legislation to be brought before Parliament. Therefore, one of the objects of

9
this Amendment is to see that we bring about an improvement in the working conditions of these people without having to go to the extent of finding the time for a Bill. As I said earlier this Amendment is to give the Bill some flexibility.
My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who, when speaking on the question of warehouses, drew our attention to the fact that the warehouses he had in mind were the wholesale warehouses. I asked him then: what was the position of packing and forwarding agents, and furniture depositories? The noble Lord did not then know the answer, but I have now heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it is not the intention of the Government to include within the provisions warehouses which do not come within the normal chain of wholesale operations. Therefore there are going to be excluded from this Bill many of the warehouses which carry on a different type of trade from wholesale and retail business. I will not make the point to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that by their exclusion you deny the workers the lawful amenities of washing facilities, sanitary arrangements and the like, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the Government are denying to those workers in those buildings all the protection of fire regulations and the like. This to me is a very serious matter. I cannot see why, if the Government have gone to the extent that they have in respect of wholesale warehouses, they should deny these facilities, deny these rights—if I may put it in that way—to workers in this branch of business. They are no different, really, from the strictly wholesale warehouses.
I believe that if the Government have the will, if they really believe in a workers' charter—and the Government are certainly trying to create the image that they have a dynamic social past—here is a clear way by which they can show to the country, and certainly to this House, that it is their intention to provide for all the workers of this country, particularly those workers whom they are going deliberately to exclude from the provisions of this Bill, those conditions to which I believe they are entitled. The purpose of the Amendment is quite simple. It does not lay a duty upon the Minister; it merely gives him the per-
10
missive right, if he should so wish, to include within the provisions of the Bill, or some of the provisions, those workers whom the Government have now excluded from it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will give us a reasonable reply to this Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after ("are") insert ("subject to the next following section").—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the nice things he said about me. It was very generous of him and I greatly appreciate it. He also started off, rather disarmingly, by thanking my noble friends and myself for what we had done on a previous stage of the Bill. Whether he was doing that in genuine thanks, or casting his bread upon the waters, I do not know, but I do not think the outcome of this afternoon's Report stage will be entirely unsatisfactory to him, although I must confess that I do not know that he is going to think my answer on this particular Amendment very satisfactory. Because he will recognise, I am sure, that this is the same Amendment, with one difference, which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, moved on the Committee stage, which your Lordships discussed fully and subsequently divided upon, and on which the House decided that they would support the Government.
The noble Lord was very persuasive, as he always is, and argued his case most strongly, but I think it would be only right for me to point out that he did not introduce any novel argument. We have discussed this subject fully, and at the time of the Committee stage I laid the Government's case fully before the House. The Amendment reveals a fundamental difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government. I think both sides of your Lordships' House and all three major Parties are in favour of this Bill, but noble Lords opposite feel that the Bill which is before your Lordships, and to which the Government are asking you to agree, does not go far enough. The fact remains that the Bill will cover 8 million workers, and that is indeed a very large number of people. We have grouped them in the categories, which

11
form the title of the Bill, and we have done this because we think that these particular groups can be classed under one heading and legislation can be passed for these three groups which makes sense as a whole. If we introduced legislation for other groups of people, it would be necessary greatly to alter the character of the Bill.
The noble Lord has suggested—and I agree with him—that it might be decided at some future date to extend this kind of legislation to groups of workers which are not yet covered. I absolutely accept that in the future it may be necessary to do so; but what he is asking us to do this afternoon is to do so by the Negative Resolution procedure. He is asking us to give the Minister power under this Bill to widen, by that procedure, the scope of the Bill; to increase the number of workers who would come under its provisions. I do not think that this is the right way to do it. I do not think that we ought to do this without a detailed examination in Parliament. Some of these workers are going to be in very different industries, very different sorts of occupations, from those we are legislating for this afternoon. I should have thought that any Government which sought greatly to extend the scope of the Bill which we are discussing this afternoon ought to do it by bringing another Bill before Parliament, so giving to those Members of Parliament who are interested in the subject an opportunity to seek to amend (an opportunity they would not have under Negative Resolution procedure) the statutory obligations which will be placed upon those other workers.
My Lords, the more I study the problem of the workers who are left outside this Bill—and I am not saying, by any means, that there will not come a time when they should be brought into it—the more certain I am that they should be dealt with by a new Bill adapted to the special circumstances of these groups of people, and that this would need a good deal of preparatory examination and discussion. For these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord to accept that the Government feel that 8 million is enough for any Government to legislate for in one Bill, and to accept the decision which your Lordships came to on the
12
Committee stage and not press this Amendment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that I was very interested in the partial quotation that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made in the course of his speech about "casting bread upon the waters". The words that conclude the proper quotation from which those words come are:
"… and thou shalt find it after many days."
He also admitted in the course of his speech that the case put by my noble friend Lord Shepherd was, in fact, a sound one in principle. He admitted that the workers covered by the speech made by Lord Shepherd were really entitled to be included, but not now. So we may say:
"Cast thy bread upon the waters, and we hope you will find it after many years."
I think that is a proper interpretation of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, put before us this afternoon. I think that, the Conservative Government having been thinking so long about their promise of a workers' charter, and they having a Bill of this sort in which only a part of the provisions of the workers' charter can be included, it should be incumbent upon the Government, in view of their general promise, to include the workers who have been named by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and so enable them to receive equal justice with those who are included in the Bill. It surely is not sufficient to say that because 8 million workers are included in this Bill all the others should be left out. I hope that he will reconsider it—or does he want us to go to another Division?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, quite fairly and quite properly, said that there is a fundamental cleavage between the two sides of the House. It is a fact, as he said, that 8 million people are included. For that, we are most grateful, and those workers who are included will be grateful: but there are some 5 million outside. As I pointed out during the Committee stage, when speaking about my own industry, the railway industry, while we are included in this Bill—and we are glad of it—the fact remains that we have effective

13
trade unions, and we have power of negotiation and representation. We are glad of the reinforcement of legislation, but to an extent we are able to look after ourselves through this strength which we have in our industrial organisation. But whole ranges of these 5 million people who are not covered by the Bill are outside the organised groups of workers and have no means whereby they can effectively make representations. Their only hope, if in fact they try to get some improvement, is through the local authority under the Public Health Acts, or under an inspectorate set up for such a Bill as this.
The reason we are anxious that we should have the Negative Resolution procedure included within this Bill is this. Any Government—every type of Government: even a Labour Government when it succeeds this present Government—will make this same excuse: "Our legislative programme is so full we just cannot afford the time to brine, in a new Bill, important and desirable though it is." From our Parliamentary experience we all know that the making of a regulation, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, is a much more simple way of dealing with the matter, particularly so far as the other House is concerned. There is no difficulty whatever from a Government point of view, when they become satisfied that a certain course is necessary, without interference with the legislative programme, in bringing forward a regulation, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, to give full effect to it.
It has taken us a very long while to get this Bill. One is always diffident about prophesying, but I shall be extremely surprised if, within the next 15 to 20 years, we get another Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill. That means, as the Bill stands, that the whole range of that 5 million workers will be
excluded for 15 to 20 years. We do not think that is good enough. We think it would be much more simple if, in fact, the Negative Resolution procedure were available, so that a Minister, when satisfied after negotiation with the people concerned, could bring forward a regulation to include any of those groups of persons among the 5 million at present excluded from the Bill. We very much regret that the Minister cannot see his way clear to deal with it now.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I see little point in proceeding with this debate unless the Government are prepared to change their mind. The Minister said in his reply that he thought it would be wrong to give the Minister power to make regulations subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. That was the burden of the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. It is indeed surprising that that should be the reply, when one looks at the overriding powers the Government are prepared to give to a Minister within a local government area: powers of direction; powers of revocation; overriding powers affecting hundreds of thousands of people. And yet here the Minister rejects this plea on that ground. I think that the Government have made a grave error in this matter. They should have seized the opportunity to use the flexibility that would have been given by acceptance of this Amendment, so that there could be brought in gradually, from time to time, more and more people as and when it was considered necessary to give them protection. In the circumstances, I do not feel prepared to withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Strang, L.

Hughes, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Summerskill, B.

Latham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Walston, L.

Lawson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Williams, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Carrington, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Grenfell, L.

Molson, L.

Conesford, L.

Guest, L.

Newall, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Haddington, E.

Newton, L.

Courtown, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Oswald, L.

Craigton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Saltoun, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hawke, L.

Somers, L.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Soulbury, V.

Dundee, E.

Howe, E.

Spens, L.

Effingham, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Twining, L.

Ferrers, E.

Kilmuir, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 2:
Exception for premises in which only employer's relatives or outworkers work
2.—(1) This Act shall not apply to any premises to which it would, apart from this subsection, apply, if none of the persons employed to work in the premises is other than the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, son, daughter, grandchild, brother or sister of the person by whom they are so employed.
3.17 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), to omit "This Act shall not apply to any premises" and to substitute:
"This Minister may by regulation exempt from all or part of this Act any premises"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage we discussed Clause 2 at some length and some Amendments were moved from this side of the House. We then moved a series of Amendments which were designed to lessen the "blanket" nature of this clause as it affects the family group business. Those of us who put down the Amendments from this side of the House found very little satisfaction from the replies of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. He batted very stubbornly, and kept his wicket, but in this connection quite wrongly. In any event we now have the opportunity to bowl at him again to-day and, perhaps, the chance that something will slip past him. I think that that would be good for him, for the Bill and for the Committee.
There is nothing in the noble Lord's remarks at the Committee stage which modifies our view of this clause as being, in the first place, unjustifiable, and, secondly, very stupid. The stupidity of the clause was well exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in a single sentence on an Amendment he moved which
16
sought to ensure that those people who had been under the protection of the Shops Act, 1950, did not have that protection lessened by this Bill. What he said, speaking to that Amendment, was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 68), col. 904]:
"…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 have re-read everything that was said in Committee, and I still cannot understand how it was decided to exclude the small family business from the provisions of this Bill.
It seemed to me that there was no precedent for such an exclusion in any of the legislation for the safety of work-people in the past. So far as I have been able to trace, I have found no such exclusion anywhere. I certainly never heard of any agitation, in the years between the publication of the Gowers Committee's Report in 1950 and the presentation of this Bill in another House in 1962, for the exclusion of these small family businesses from the Bill. It seems to me that when the Bill was being considered in the Ministry of Labour, somebody must have said that this is a family Government and it would please the Minister if we put into the Bill a provision excluding the small family from its provisions. Someone asked what provisions they would exclude them from, and somebody must have said, "Let us exclude them from the lot." That is how we have the exclusion of these small family businesses from important provisions of this Bill.
We failed to secure the deletion of this clause on Committee stage, but we are still so convinced that it is a bad clause that we are to-day moving this Amendment which seeks to reverse the process

17
which we think took place in the Ministry of Labour and led to the inclusion of this clause, and to remove this blanket exception, but to leave the Minister power to exempt family businesses from the provision of the Bill by regulation. This would cause the Minister and his Department to consider the whole matter in relation to every safety provision of the Bill and eventually to justify his proposed exceptions one by one to Parliament. We have been discussing this matter on the last Amendment, when it was pointed out that the Minister would have to come and justify all his actions under certain regulations, I should really like to hear the Minister having to justify to Parliament as a whole the exception of the family employee from the provisions of Clause 17.
Last Thursday we had a fascinating discussion on the whole question of compensation and the right to sue under Common Law where employees are injured at work. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, made a point on Committee stage, and the same point was made with great force by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, speaking last Thursday, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOL 248 (No. 73), col. 1337]:
"There are two methods by which you can bring your case before the court. You can either sue for Common Law negligence, or you can sue for damages in respect of a breach of the Act of Parliament. In the case of Common Law negligence, of course, you have to prove that the employer was at fault. You would normally prove that either by showing that other people did what he failed to do (that would not apply here), or you would prove it by showing that there had been similar accidents in his works, or other works that he knew about, which ought to have put him on his guard, and that he ought to have done something. If you can prove negligence against your employer, you can always have a remedy. The only reason why it is common to use the Factories Act, even in cases where negligence could be proved, is because it is easier, from the point of view of trouble and expense, to bring your case forward in that way."
We can see not the slightest justification for excluding the man who is employed by a member of his family from the provisions of Clause 17 and the protection they would give him by his being able to take his case to court in the event of his being injured. And what applies to Clause 17 applies to a number of other provisions of the Bill.
18
There is no justification for the exception of small family businesses from the provisions dealing with the avoidance of the exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning machinery, the training and supervision of young persons working dangerous machines, the safety and health provisions, the first-aid provisions, and certainly with the fire protection provisions. We say that, if there are to be exceptions—and we make some provision for these in this Amendment—each and every one of them ought to be justified separately to both Houses of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, chided me on Committee stage because I seemed to him to be suggesting that close relatives were not to be trusted in this matter of securing the safety of each other. That is precisely the position I take up in this connection. I do not believe that they are to be so trusted. Employers can be just as careless about the safety of employees who are relatives as they are of those who are not relatives. Familiarity with the conditions operating in an office or shop or a long period without accidents leads to a slackening of care. All these are factors which, if unchecked by the fear of a call from an inspector, can operate as seriously in a family business as in any other business. I have no hesitation at all about again putting forward Amendments designed to cause the Government to have another look at this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out from beginning to second "to" and insert the said words.—(Lord Champion.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, we have debated this subject of the small family business at every previous stage of this Bill, and on every occasion it has fallen mainly to me to express the views of Her Majesty's Government. I am afraid that the views of the Government have become very familiar to your Lordships by now. I might even say that I for my part am becoming familiar with the views of noble Lords on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, said that he received little satisfaction from me when I replied to his several Amendments in Committee, and tempted me to let a ball through this afternoon. I

19
do not often play cricket nowadays, but when I do I still try not to let balls through, and I shall try to keep them out again this afternoon.
The noble Lord said that despite what had been said on behalf of the Government on Clause 2, and his re-reading of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he was not in a position to modify his views on this. I am afraid that I am not in a position to modify my views, either. This is a question upon which there is a clear clash of principle between the two sides of the House. We believe that the close family relationship will be a sufficient safeguard in these matters; the noble Lord does not. I have come to the conclusion that I am not likely to be any more successful in persuading noble Lords opposite to accept our point of view this afternoon than I have been before. So I will not waste your Lordships' time by repeating the arguments which I have used so often before.
3.30 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has really given a reply that is quite contemptuous of the arguments which we have been seriously putting forward on this matter. I believe, with quite strong feeling, that he is not treating the House properly to say that it is not worth putting forward his arguments again. The truth of the matter is that we have not had any satisfactory arguments, but only this vague, ill-considered argument about the importance of these families. It is because we have become familiar with the Government's argument, and because they have failed to produce new ones that have some reality, that we are pressing this. The truth of the matter is, as my noble friend Lord Champion said, that this is something stuck in the Bill; it has not been thought out, and, frankly, it is a piece of nonsense.
There are powers already in this Bill for exempting small business from certain of the more onerous provisions. I do not know which particular provisions in the Bill the noble Lord, or the Government, say should not be applied to family businesses, but I would repeat that it is absurd to say that you should apply the Bill to a small business and not to a family business, which may change its nature overnight. There is this argument—and it may be that the
20
OFFICIAL REPORT is wrong. I did not say the wife may become ill and send for her sister, but for her sister-in-law—and immediately the Act will apply. There is still time for the Government to put down an Amendment on Third Reading. I really do urge them to try to get themselves out of what is quite an absurd situation.
The arguments that my noble friend Lord Champion and other noble Lords have put forward are clear, and I would only like to reinforce one or two of them. There is once again this argument of breach of statutory duty. This is a protection in terms of the insurance that will be taken away from the family business. The noble Lord and the Government may think that they are doing the family business a kindness, but in fact they may well be doing the family harm. Then there is the final point I would make—namely, that I accuse the Government of bad faith in this matter. At no stage until I moved my Amendment on Committee did they admit that they were in fact cancelling the provisions of the relevant sections, Sections 37 to 39, of the Shops Act which previously covered small businesses and are already operative so far as small businesses are concerned, and they would no longer apply.
I do not think the Government have thought this out at all. One of the objects of this process in Parliament—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and that is why I wish he would put his arguments forward—is that we may test the validity of the argument. Our argument is that there is really no justification for this exception. The provisions in the fire certificate would not, under the Bill as already drafted, apply to the small family business, because of the number of people who have to be in the premises. If there are fewer than twenty downstairs or ten upstairs the premises are already exempted. It seems to me that, if the Government would accept this Amendment, they may well have the opportunity to think more carefully about this and see how far there is a real justification for granting this exemption. I really do urge the Government to take these arguments seriously. Noble Lords opposite know as well as we do that this particular clause is complete nonsense.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, have the Government anything to say on this matter about Clause 17 and the statutory duty to fence the exposed parts of dangerous machinery? Is it not Gilbertian that in the case of a family business only there shall be no statutory duty to fence dangerous parts of machines? What possible advantage or kindness to a family business is achieved by exempting them only from everybody else's duty to fence dangerous machinery?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I also ask the Government whether it is a fact that if this clause stays in the Bill it will be permissible to sell dangerous machinery to a family business but not to sell the same type of machinery to any other business? Is that not a fact in regard to Clause 20?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Newton is not going to accept any of the suggestions made from noble Lords opposite, because they are absolutely anathema to noble Lords or this side who do not want the whole nation to be inspected, one half inspecting the other. Every speech from the other side of the House on this particular subject (and we have heard a number now) has come out with the theory that everybody should always have an inspector round the corner to watch them.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD HAWKE: That is, as I say, absolutely anathema to noble Lords on this side of the House. Her Majesty's Government in this Bill have tried to bring in the areas where there is likely to be the greatest danger to working conditions and the like, and to extend it over the whole gamut of employment would mean either that there has to be a vast army of inspectors or that the inspection would be valueless and nugatory. I support the Government's attitude entirely on this, and I recommend noble Lords opposite to read 1984.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that that argument will not be taken seriously. When we pass a law in this House, whether it is after considering inspection or not, it is a crime against the State not to obey it. If you are going to say that you require laws to protect life and limb and the reasonable amenities of people who are in the large way of busi-
22
ness, or a larger way of business than those excluded under the Bill, and they will possibly be accused of committing a crime against the State and prosecuted, it must be wrong that all those others involved in a risk to life and limb and lack of amenities are to be exempted because it is difficult to persuade the Conservative Party that inspection is reasonable.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I should not have risen to my feet but for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. May I make it quite clear from this side of the House that we accept the fact that the average husband treats his wife well, and that he treats his family well; he is concerned about their health and their welfare. But does not the noble Lord know that we have legislation protecting children? The average parent does not ill-treat his child. Yet, in order to protect the child against the callous parent, we have our Children Acts. So tar as the use of dangerous machinery in a shop is concerned, to which the noble Lord referred, many small family shops are grocers and they have a hand-operated bacon machine. A hand-operated bacon machine is as dangerous a weapon as ever a band saw is in a factory. An ordinary citizen employed in the shop is covered by this Bill.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question arising out of that? I cannot make a second speech; I can only ask a question. If it is necessary to have an inspection for these little family businesses for these things, why is it not necessary to have the same inspection in every home in this country, of the spin dryer, the washing machine and the hair dryer, all of which are dangerous?
LORD LINDGREN: There, again, the noble Lord does not know what he is talking about. By legislation we require certain protective standards of maintenance and fitment.
LORD HAWKE: When does the inspector come round and look at them?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: If there is a serious accident.
LORD LINDGREN: If there is a serious accident he does. It may not happen so far as the noble Lord is concerned, but quite often the electrical fittings in a house are inspected by the

23
Electricity Board, and the gas fittings are inspected, because they may be dangerous. We pass legislation, not to deal with the best citizens but to protect persons against the worst citizens. As a whole, we are a law-abiding community, and we have passed legislation in order that those who would break the law and ill-treat others can be prevented from so doing. We see no reason why a family business should be excluded. The reasoning is fallacious. If a family business employs one person from outside then the whole force of the Bill applies. I said during the Committee stage that while a shop may be excluded from the provisions of the Bill when it closes on a Saturday night, if on Monday morning the same shop employs one outside person among the rest of the family, then the whole weight of this Bill will apply. If it is necessary for the bacon machine to be guarded because one outsider is employed, why should it not be guarded if a son, daughter or grandchild is employed within the shop?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that the idea of inspections into small family businesses and the like were anathema to his side of the House. I can only say that that side of the House passed the safety health and welfare provisions of the Agriculture Act, which made allowance for this situation. If they were anathema at that time, I can only say that that side of the House allowed them
Resoled in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
to slip through. The point I would make is that when this Bill was introduced, I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with some pride, and, I think, justification, said that the Conservative Party had a long history of legislation to protect the factory worker. In that case, surely noble Lords on that side of the House are bound to admit that this question of whether the family group should be included or left out was not anathema to them; because there is no such exception in any of the other safety and welfare provisions of previous Acts, both factory and agriculture.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he thought I had made a mistake, or that Hansard had, in this matter of Clause 2. The fact is, of course, that if the husband is the employer and the wife goes sick and sends for her sister to help out, then the whole of the provisions of this Bill will immediately apply. This is really a nonsensical clause, and it seems to me there is not the slightest justification for its retention in the Bill, and I certainly do not propose to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask whether he would consider including daughters-in-law?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is there no reply?
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Sinha, L.

Attlee, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Champion, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strang, L.

Clwyd, L.

Saltoun, L.

Summerskill, B.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Shackleton, L.

Walston, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Ferrers, E.

Kilmuir, E.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Carrington, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Lothian, M.

Chesham, L.

Glentanar, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Molson, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Haddington, E.

Newall, L.

Courtown, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newton, L.

Craigton, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hawke, L.

Soulbury, V.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Swinton, E.

Dundee, E.

Howe, E.

Twining, L.

Effingham, E.

Jellicoe, E.

FISHERY LIMITS AND TRADE IN FISH
3.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, before we proceed to the next Amendment perhaps your Lordships would like me to repeat the statement on the Law of the Sea which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal.
"In recent years, international fishery problems have increased substantially in gravity and in complexity. The most serious are those of access to fishing grounds and of access to markets. These are aggravated as fishing fleets increase in size, speed and catching power.
"Many of the international agreements regarding fisheries, and our related legislation, are very old and many of their provisions are consequently obsolete. There is, therefore, an urgent need to examine the whole complex of fishery problems afresh.
"At the Law of the Sea Conferences of 1958 and 1960 Her Majesty's Government gave their full support to attempts to reach international agreement on the extent of the territorial seas and fisheries jurisdiction. These attempts to settle one aspect of the problem in isolation, however, failed.
"Again, at the time of the Brussels negotiations, Her Majesty's Government made clear their interest in the settlement of common fishery problems on a European basis. Although the negotiations were not concluded, our objective remains to secure a reasonable livelihood for fishermen and stable markets in Western Europe.
"Her Majesty's Government believe that these questions and the special problems of fisheries must be looked at as a whole and can best be settled by discussion. We are, therefore, inviting those countries affected, the members of the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community, Iceland, the Irish Republic and Spain to a conference in the autumn. We propose that this conference should consider the questions of trade in fish and access to fishing grounds. We hope by
26
this means to arrive at an equitable settlement on a European basis which will have regard to the interests of all sections of the fishing industry. During these discussions, we shall bear in mind the interests of Commonwealth countries and will consult them where their interests are affected.
"These fishing problems have been aggravated in recent years by the progressive restriction of areas of the high seas on which nations of the world can exercise their right of fishing. In particular, the countries off whose coast lie many of the principal fishing grounds in the Northern Atlantic area have claimed an extension of their fishery jurisdiction.
"These extensions, which have imposed heavy sacrifices on the British deep-sea fishing fleets, have obliged Her Majesty's Government to consider whether the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry, taken as a whole, can be reconciled with the continuation of the traditional three-mile limit around the coasts of the United Kingdom. While giving full weight to the legitimate interests of our friends and allies, our conclusion is that in the present state of international law we would no longer be justified in denying to British fishermen some extension of their exclusive rights to their own coastal waters.
"In order, therefore, to regain our freedom of action regarding the extent of our fishery limits in the light of the discussions I have already described, we have decided to give notice of our intention to terminate our participation in the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882 with effect from May 15, 1964; and also the Fisheries Regulations of 1843 made under the Anglo-French Fishery Convention of 1839, with effect from June 24, 1964. These notices were given on April 26. From June 24, 1964, we shall then be free to take such action as we consider desirable.
"Her Majesty's Government hope that this initiative will enable the countries concerned to achieve a satisfactory settlement of these complex problems."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for giving us this

27
statement. I think your Lordships' House as a whole will agree that it is high time something of this kind was done to try to come to an agreement which would satisfactorily remedy the grievances which have arisen, not through us, but through the steps taken by other countries. So, in general, we support this statement, but I should like to ask the noble Earl two questions. First, who, exactly, are the countries with some European territory? Are they all included in the association mentioned—for example, is Russia included? Second, I should like to know whether it is because of existing sea law that more than twelve months' notice has been given, and whether we ought not to have been able—unless the present agreements to which we are subject forbid it—to proceed at once if there is failure of the conference?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl's first question, I would say that Russia is not included. I think I read out the list of those whom we had invited, and they are: the EFTA and E.E.C. countries, Iceland, the Irish Republic and Spain. With regard to the noble Earl's second question, about the length of notice, I think we have to give a term of notice in regard to both these matters, the 1882 Convention and the 1843 Agreement with France. But the dates at which they expire, as the House will have noticed, will be after the Conference which we are hoping to have in the autumn, if it is not too protracted, and which will have included these deliberations; and the Conference, of course, will take place in the knowledge that we shall be free after the spring of next year to take what action we think right. But we should, as I know the noble Earl will agree, all much prefer to get an agreed settlement at the Conference.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows that I have been concerned about this subject since the 1930s, may I ask him whether the Moray Firth, which is a very special case, and the Minch, will receive special consideration from Her Majesty's Government? Secondly, may I ask whether the Republic of Ireland will be sharing with us in these conversations and be hand in hand with us, because they have an interest just as important as our own?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Republic of Ireland is one of the countries which are invited; and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office always pay special attention to fishermen in the areas which my noble friend mentioned. My noble friend the Leader of the House is not quite sure whether I made clear the position of France. France is being invited to the Conference as one of the E.E.C. countries, and I specially mentioned the notice we have given to terminate the separate agreement that was made with France in 1843 as a result of a previous decision of 1839.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I appreciate the position vis-à-vis those who are parties to the Convention and who have kept the Convention loyally, as we have, but what is our position with regard to the countries, who may or may not have been members of that Convention, who have extended their limits to six and even twelve miles? Are we bound not to take any reciprocal action—I must not say retaliatory action—in respect of those countries?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, I do not think we are bound not to do so, and we particularly reserved our position with regard to the Faroes and Greenland; but, of course, we should all much prefer to get a settlement by agreement, and I think we must try to do that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as, quite rightly, the time has arrived when this matter should be discussed in a friendly way round the table, why has Russia not been invited—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have given only the countries who have been invited and who are most nearly concerned. I do not know that I could answer the negative question of why neither Russia nor any of the other United Nations countries which took part in the Geneva Conference, which was a failure, have not been invited. The answer, in fact, is that this is not a world conference or a United Nations conference, which we have tried before; this is simply a West European Conference.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this is, of course, a matter which concerns all countries who are interested in fishing.

29
Would it not be desirable to get them all at this Conference? While congratulating the Government on the initiative they are taking in this matter, may I ask whether they have sounded the feeling? Have they good reason to believe that the countries who are to be invited will accept, or are they taking a chance?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have not got all the answers yet, but I have reason to believe that some of them, at least, will accept. With regard to the larger question, I may say that, as the noble Lord knows, we had these two conferences which were under the authority of the United Nations, attended by representatives of all the countries in the world which are interested in fishing. I think this new departure is more limited only because it might have a greater chance of success.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the question which my noble Leader asked about the period of notice was not quite answered by the noble Earl—whether the twelve months' notice was necessary—but in a way the answer was not unsatisfactory, in that he linked it with the Conference which is to be held. That Conference will perhaps be a somewhat prolonged one, particularly if the negotiations show any signs of being successful, and it therefore was reasonable that we should not appear to hold a tight time limit over the deliberations of such a Conference.
Having regard to the attempts which have been made in the past to reach agreement with some of the countries which are invited and which have extended their own limits, presumably the Government are going into the Conference with some idea of what they suggest this country should do if agreement does not result. Might I ask in that connection—and this follows on what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has asked in relation to the Moray Firth—whether the Government are contemplating, for instance, just a straightforward extension of the present three-mile limit, following each little point of the coast all the way round, or would they do what I understand other countries have done: take whatever limit it is going to be, whether three miles, four miles, six miles or twelve miles, from extremi-
30
ties? From that point of view the question my noble friend Lady Summer-skill has asked is not without importance, because one of the countries which is making inroads into our fishing fields is Russia.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: On the first question about the time limit, I think I have made it clear that by next June we shall be free to take what action we think right. I think it is better merely to say that and hope we shall get agreement at the Conference, rather than adopt a tone which might seem to be threatening. In his second supplementary the noble Lord put forward a number of possible proposals which might be discussed at the Conference, and I should prefer not to go into the possible agenda other than that general statement which I made, which was:
"We propose that this Conference should consider the questions of trade in fish and access to the fishing grounds."
On that basis we want to see what the possible field for agreement here is and find how we are best likely to get agreement which may be acceptable to everybody.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I agree it is reasonable that we should not go into the Conference with a whole series of proposals saying "Do this or else we will do that". May I put it this way: that none of the suggestions I have made will necessarily be excluded from the Government's consideration if the Conference should unfortunately not succeed in reaching agreement?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, I think SO.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, does the noble Earl remember that almost the first proposal made by Russia to all her allies at the conclusion of the war was that all countries should establish a twelve-mile limit, a proposal which I always hoped would be accepted, so that we should find one thing to agree with the Russians about? Will the noble Earl remember that and perhaps reconsider it?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think the two questions necessarily go together. We hoped to get an agreement at the Geneva Conference with the Committee of the United

31
Nations which discussed the matter, and we were very disappointed that we did not; and, of course, Russia is a member of the United Nations.

OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
4.8 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1) after "Act" to insert "excepting section 48". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a comparatively simple Amendment to Clause 2, and it does not carry on this side, I feel sure, quite the weight of some of the other Amendments we have moved to this clause up to now. It seems to us, however, that there is justification for ensuring that all premises covered under this Bill ought to be instructed to make reports on accidents. Notification of accidents is dealt with in Clause 48, to which this Amendment refers.
Notification of accidents must have at least two purposes, the first of which is to ensure that when an accident takes place there is a following inspection by an inspector sent by the appropriate authority after receipt of notification of the accident, in order to examine the premises to see whether there has been a breach of the Act or whether something has been done which has led to the accident and might have been prevented, or might be prevented in the future by some immediate action. The first thing is of some importance, particularly in those premises which are covered by this Bill. Secondly, reports of accidents provide statistics upon which to base possible future legislation. Those who have examined some of these Acts in the past have seen how they are based upon the number of accidents of various categories that have occurred in the past. So we have these two useful features of Clause 48 of the present Bill
We on this side believe that a future Government will have to look again at the exclusion of businesses under Clause 2. We think that at some time it will be necessary for a Government, when
32
examining the whole problem, to look into the number of accidents that actually take place in premises occupied by small family businesses, and perhaps to take some suitable action in connection with them. So I should think that statistics provided, as we hope to see them provided, for bringing small family businesses under Clause 48, would in the future supply a basis for useful legislation on the whole problem of the small family business. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, after ("Act") insert ("excepting section 48").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I again put to him a point which I made on the previous Amendment but on which he did not feel able to rise to reply? Under Clause 20, as I understand it, it is possible that machinery that is dangerous, or which will be regarded as dangerous by the Minister and which cannot be sold legally to those firms who will come within the scope of the Bill, can be sold to family businesses. Can the noble Lord say whether that is right, or whether I am wrong? If I am right, then obviously the risk of accidents materially rises. If we accept the Amendment that has been moved by my noble friend—and really it is not an unreasonable request—that if an accident takes place and there has been injury to some member of the family the authorities should be informed and the reasons why the accident took place ascertained, it will be not only in the interests of everyone else but also in the interests of the family business which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, wishes to safeguard. Much is learned from an analysis of the types of accident that take place; much is learned by the Ministry. Amendments and alterations to machinery can be made to increase the safety factor.
Will the Government say this afternoon that because of the effect of Clause 2, machinery that would be prohibited for sale to shops and offices coming within this Bill, can in fact be sold to the hundreds of thousands of family businesses? That is a strong cardinal point that we wish to get from the Government this afternoon. If I am right, then obviously, as I have said, the risk of accidents increases and therefore the Minister should, in the interests of the family business,

33
know what is in it, to ascertain the causes of those accidents and perhaps take action.
4.14 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was strictly out of order in asking his question about Clause 20 on this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
LORD NEWTON: Well, I suspect that he is. But I do not rise to take that point. So far as I am aware, the answer to his question is, Yes. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, would not, it is true, subject family businesses to the apparatus of inspection or the need to register; all they would have to do is to send in a report of any accident as specified in Clause 48. Then, in theory, it would, I suppose, be possible for the Government to keep an eye on such businesses. But, apart from the question of principle in Clause 2, about which we are all quite clear although we differ about its importance, there would be considerable practical difficulties if the House were to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. In the first place, what would be done with the notifications? Are they simply to be collected, or is an inspector to enter the premises after notification of an accident in order to examine the matter more fully.
LORD SHEPHERD: Why not?
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says "Why not?" If so, then, of course, the inspector would need the powers of entry and examination in Clause 53.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if there was a fire he would, would he not?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, fire does not arise under this Amendment. The point is that if it were thought that inspectors should follow up these notifications, it would be necessary for them to have the powers of entry and examination in Clause 53. Is it desired that failure to notify an accident in a family business would constitute an
34
offence? If so, many of the clauses concerned with offences, penalties and legal proceedings, which are dealt with in Clauses 62 to 71 of the Bill, would have to be applied to these family premises. In short, I do not think that one can sensibly apply Clause 48 to family businesses without applying a number of the administrative and enforcement provisions of the Bill as well; otherwise one would be inviting non-compliance with the law. It seems to me that there is no point in applying Clause 48 to small businesses without also taking powers of enforcement—and your Lordships know perfectly well the views of the Government on that. Therefore, I regret that I am not able to advise the House to accept this Amendment.
4.18 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is really quite extraordinary. I do not think the Government—at least the members of the Government present—know much of what goes on in the field of industrial injuries. The noble Lord is aware that under the Industrial Injuries Act it is necessary for an employer to make a record of accidents. He has to keep a book specially for the purpose, and in this book are entered details, and if necessary he has to send them to the Ministry. It is quite likely that this would not give rise to many visits, but it would at least complete the statistics. I cannot see why, for statistical purposes, what is not an onerous obligation should not be provided for. It would be perfectly easy to amend this Bill to make provision for the necessary follow-up action. We do not say that necessarily we have drafted it in the correct form, and I hope that the Government will not try to ride out on that technicality.
As recently as 1961 the Government imposed this obligation on factories, including small family factories. The noble Lord may laugh, but there are small family factories. The noble Lord may even like to study what is the definition of a factory. In Redgrave, among the processes given is that of the preparing and adapting of articles for sale. It is quite conceivable, in fact, that for the purpose of the Factories Act and for reporting on this matter, there may he an obligation already in existence. I do not

35
know what the noble Lord is going to do about that. Indeed there have been some rather embarrassing decisions in the courts lately, one in particular, on this subject. Surely in the interests of tidiness they can give way on this narrow but not insignificant point.
I know that there is this deep and, I would go so far as to say, largely erroneous sentiment on this matter—erroneous because it is not doing any good to the family business or to the family. Will the Government not have a look at it, bearing in mind the requirements of the Industrial Injuries Act? There is already an obligation to keep a book on such accidents, so that a proper claim can be made, which may be the subject of appeal, and it would be easy to meet this small point either by adopting my noble friends Amendments, or, conceivably, by undertaking to make the necessary provision at a later stage.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I should like to say that from the beginning the Government have taken a perfectly intelligible and reasonable view on this matter. They have stated in Clause 2 that what we may call the family business is outside the Bill. If certain members of the Opposition (and, technically, we on this side of the House are all members of the Opposition) want to fiddle about with Clause 2 in one way or another they will get nowhere. Why do they not go the whole hog—and I am sorry the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is not present—and introduce an Amendment to eliminate Clause 2 altogether? At all events, that would be intelligible; but to keep on trying to amend Clause 2 by attaching other parts of the Bill to Clause 2 will achieve nothing at all.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I do not know whether he was present when his other noble friend was speaking—it is always interesting to have different Liberal voices—but this is precisely what we have been attempting to do.
LORD MESTON: If that is so, I do not see it from the consolidated Amendments to-day. If you want to eliminate
36
Clause 2 altogether, go the whole hog and put down an Amendment to that effect. Personally, I think the Government have taken up quite a reasonable view in excluding the family business from the provisions of this Bill. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, spoke about different Liberal vices. Well, I know we all have different vices—or did he say "voices"? I think this is one of the ways in which we can differ without differing angrily, and I think that the Government have taken a reasonable view of this.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, did not discuss the vices of the Liberal Party or of its members. Certainly we have heard different voices from that Party on Clause 2, and certainly the votes up to now will record that substantially the Liberal Party has been in favour of the elimination of Clause 2, or its substantial Amendment.
A NOBLE LORD: Hear, hear!
LORD CHAMPION: There is fine vocal support from the Liberal Front Bench, which is very welcome indeed!
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, addressed his mind to the point concerning what would be done when the report was made to the appropriate authority, because the inspector would have no right of entry under the Bill. I realised that, and therefore divided my remarks into two sections—the first dealing with the entry of the inspector, and so on; and the second dealing with the collection of statistics on which it would be possible to base future legislation. I believe that point was not answered, and it ought to have been answered. I think that eventually there will be amending legislation, despite the fact that half the Liberal Party present has said there will be no need for any legislation: the other half has obviously said, by its vote, that there will be need for amending legislation. We on these Benches feel that eventually Amendments to Clause 2 will have to be made, and we think that those Amendments ought to be based on statistics which could be, and ought to be, collected under the Amendment which we propose.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
4.33 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"( ) If any person, other than those specified, is employed to work in any premises exempted by this section, the occupier of the premises shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for a first offence and not exceeding one hundred pounds for a second or subsequent offence".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns a question of administration rather than of principle. But it is, I believe, very important that we should look at the administration (if it is possible to look at administration on a clause of exemption), because we do not wish that there should be a very large loophole driven right through the Bill.
As I understand the Bill, Clause 2 will exempt those businesses that are classed as family businesses, but other businesses will be required under Clause 49 to notify the authorities that they come within the scope of the Bill. We have the case, therefore, as I understand it, that a firm which comes within this Bill must notify the authority, and if—perhaps because of lack of knowledge, perhaps because of inefficiency—it fails to do so, it becomes liable to a penalty of £20. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has made it quite clear that, once a
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Sinha, L.

Chorley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Boston, L

Glentanar, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Meston, L.

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Milverton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Molson, L.

Conesford, L.

Hanworth, V.

Newall, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hawke, L.

Newton, L.

Courtown, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigton, L.

Howe, E.

Saltoun, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kilmuir, E.

Soulbury, V.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Swinton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Lothian, M.

Twining, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mancroft, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

firm comes within the definition of a family business under Clause 2, it is not the Government's desire that the firm should at any time be visited by an inspector. As I put it to the House, that could well mean that a firm which was a family business, and therefore exempt, could well employ persons outside the family; and, because the business was known to the inspector to be a family business and therefore exempt, he would not visit and would thus have no knowledge that that family business in fact had other employees.
It would appear to me that a family business could, in the first instance perhaps, prove its right to exemption and then, because of various circumstances, proceed to employ an individual without notifying the authority. If an employer did this he would be liable, as I understand it, in the first instance, to a fine of £20. If he did it a second time then the penalty would again be £20. In fact, it could be quite profitable for a business which was in the first instance a family business, but which was forced by circumstances to take on an employee and knew that the inspector was not likely to come round, to employ people and perhaps to pay a fine in the first instance, and then perhaps to pay a £20 fine in the second instance. I think that is utterly wrong. I think it would be very unfair to the small shopkeeper next door, who is in competition and who is honest, but who

39
comes within this Bill, and has perhaps undertaken a capital expense.
The object of this Amendment is to impose what one might call a deterrent fine in regard to this clause. If a family business has been exempted and has proved that it is right for it to be exempted, but then takes on an employee then the normal fine of £20 would apply in the first instance. But if that type of firm, having obtained exemption, repeated the offence of taking on an employee and failed to notify the authority, then the maximum fine would become £100. The Minister may say that the Government's Amendment No. 50, dealing with Clause 62(2)—we are dealing with penalties for offences not defined in the Bill—would apply. But I hope the House will agree that if firms are able to obtain exemption from the Bill, and then break for a second time the grounds on which they have been granted exemption, they should be liable to a fairly severe penalty—in other words, a deterrent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as soon as an employer employs anybody who is not a close relative as defined in Clause 2, the business will come within the ambit of the Bill. There is no doubt at all about that. As a result, the employer will have to register under Clause 49 and comply with all the provisions of the Bill. If he fails to register he will be liable to a penalty of up to £20 under Clause 49(3), whether for the first or for a subsequent offence. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has argued that the penalty for subsequent offences ought to be higher, and he wants to make it £100. But, my Lords, I do not see why family businesses which fail to register should be singled out for a higher penalty in this respect than any other concern. Incidentally, I am advised that the penalty of £100 for an administrative offence is out of line with the scale of penalties prescribed for other offences under the Bill.
The real point I want to make, however, is this. If it was discovered that a small family business had failed to register, I think we can be certain that an in-
40
spection of the premises would be carried out, and that a prosecution would be likely to be based on whether contraventions of the Bill were discovered and not solely on the failure to register. If that is so, I think perhaps the noble Lord would agree with me that the likelihood of there being in the future further failures to register becomes very much less, because whatever is necessary will presumably have been put right—or, at any rate, there would have been the prosecution for not putting the defect right. That is why I really do not think I can accept this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord make one thing clear (because I think he has made an important point), and then perhaps I can withdraw my Amendment. Am I to understand that if a firm has not notified the authorities that it has employees on the premises, and an inspector in the course of his duty ascertains that there are employees on the premises, then the court case brought against that firm would be not only for the failure to carry out the notification clauses but also for the failure to comply with all the other provisions which the firm would have been required to carry out had they notified in the first instance? In other words, that there would be a cumulative case made against the firm if it failed to notify the authorities and was found out?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to speak again, I can answer very quickly. The answer is that there certainly could be a prosecution for non-compliance with the Bill, not only in respect of a failure to register. I cannot say more than "could". Obviously, I cannot say what the prosecuting authority would do in any particular instance; but I think one can presume that that is, in fact, what they would do.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Overcrowding]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, in subsection (1), after "cause" to insert "discomfort to, or".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in some difficulty over this Amendment

41
because it is related to Amendment No. 9; but between Amendment No. 9 and Amendment No. 7 comes an Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which goes a long way to meet the points that I want to make. If the noble Lord would not mind my discussing later (because it is material to his Amendment) this early Amendment. No. 7, that would meet my case. I think it is too late for me to say that I do not now move, so I formally move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 46, after ("cause") insert ("discomfort to, or").—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.44 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved to add to subsection (1):
";and in determining, for the purposes of this subsection, whether any such room is so overcrowded as aforesaid, regard shall be had (amongst other things) not only to the number of persons who may he expected to be working in the room at any time but also to the space in the room occupied by furniture, furnishings, fittings, machinery, plant, equipment, appliances and other things (whether similar to any of those aforesaid or not)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite has said, during the Committee stage I undertook to consider what had been said on an Amendment rather similar to this but which went rather further. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, during that short debate, suggested, in column 518, that there were other ways of doing what we both, I think, wanted to do—possibly by a strengthening of subsection (1) of the clause, laying on the inspectors a duty to have general regard to certain considerations. I took that suggestion away and asked the officials of the Ministry of Labour and the Parliamentary draftsman to see whether they could devise a formula to do what in point of fact all of us, on both sides of the Committee, wanted to do. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lord Denham explained that the original Amendment was unacceptable because in our view it would have meant that the inspectors would have spent a great deal of time with a tape measure. I know the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, poured
42
scorn on this, but we felt that it was putting a great onus on the inspector. But I did give an assurance that I would look at it again.
Under my Amendment the Bill will read that an inspector must have regard not only to the number of persons working in the room but also to such things as space occupied by furniture and machinery. I believe that this is a useful strengthening of the provision, and I think we should be grateful to the noble Lords opposite for having brought this to the attention of the House.
Perhaps I might also say a word now on the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, first moved and then withdrew, and to which I understand he may refer again on Amendment No. 9. What he is trying to do is very similar to what the Government propose, except that he has gone one step further and introduced the concept of overcrowding causing discomfort. It seems to me that there would be a difficulty in such wording, and I think I owe it to the noble Lord, who very kindly did not move his Amendment, to explain why. I think one should bear in mind that this clause is designed to prevent overcrowding as a threat to health; and, clearly, diseases spread more easily in overcrowded conditions. The concept of discomfort is, I think, not only inappropriate but also insufficiently precise. Other clauses in the Bill—for instance, those dealing with the temperature, ventilation and seats—contribute to the comfort of employees, but I feel that in this particular case it would be wrong to depart from the precedent of the Factories Act. I have accepted the noble Lord's views expressed during the Committee stage and I think that I have done pretty well what he wants, so I hope he will be satisfied. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 47, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will have a bit of luck, and will have a nicer thing to say to the House later. But I appreciate the interest and the trouble which the noble Lord has taken. I think that is probably as far as we can hope to take it. I do not

43
know whether this wording is precise enough for the purposes we had in mind, but certainly it makes very clear what are the intentions of Parliament in the matter, and I think people will have regard to this.
The point I wanted to make in regard to discomfort was that my intention was to widen the clause so that the test of overcrowding should not be solely weighed against a criterion of a risk of injury to the health of persons but should also take into account their comfort. One might almost have gone further and said "efficiency", but that would have been moving right into the field of managerial responsibility, and I feel that "comfort" is also a little in that category.
My anxiety, of course, is that overcrowded conditions do affect efficiency and do affect happiness; and to that extent I think it would probably be true to say that they represent a risk to health. Of course, psychological troubles and nervous breakdowns are not unknown amongst office workers, and a factor in this is undoubtedly the conditions under which they work. I have recently seen examples, not only of how much better people work but of how much happier they are—and therefore, I think healthier—when they have been transferred to well-laid-out offices, and when there has not been a jumble of stuff lying around. But I think it is probable that that degree of overcrowding which really is upsetting to the happiness of the people concerned—going day after day to the same office—would be regarded as a risk of injury to health, and therefore I had not intended to press my original Amendment. We are grateful to the Government for accepting this particular proposal.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (3)(c), to leave out "three" and insert "two" [years]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 10 on the Marshalled List. The purpose of this Amendment is again to ask the Government to go, as it were, a bit further. The provision of the subsection is that what has become known as "the period of grace" is three years—that is to say, the provisions applicable
44
to overcrowding and the ancillary provisions attaching to that condition become effective only at the end of three years from the date when the clause will become effective. It is the case that the Government have gone some way to meet the original objections to the five years, which period was reduced to three years in another place. Our view is that three years is too long. It means that the provisions of this clause as regards overcrowding will not become effective until four years, on the basis that the Statute will not become effective for a year from date.
We suggest that the employers and those responsible for giving effect to the provisions relating to overcrowding have, in fact, been on notice that something of this kind was likely to be dealt with by legislation for some 13 years—namely, the period since the publication of the Gowers Report. In point of fact, the situation is that the period of grace is some 50 years, because the agitation for bringing non-industrial workers within provisions similar to those of the Factory Act was initiated and pursued with vigour and intent some 50 years ago. Our submission is that the employers will not find it very difficult to carry out the provisions at the end of three years as distinct from four years.
After all, we must remember that the purpose of this Bill is protection of those employed against dangers, and while it is desirable that one should have regard to the practicability and reasonableness of impositions which are to be applied to employers, we must also have regard to the interests of the employed persons. Our submission is that there is a good case for reducing the period from three years to two years; and I beg so to move.
Page 5, line 17, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the House will recall that I resisted a precisely similar Amendment in Committee and I must resist this one for the same reasons. I am wondering whether noble Lords appreciate the full effect of the important changes made in another place, to which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, referred, when the period of grace was reduced from five years to three years. With the continuing increase in employment in offices and

45
shops there are at any one time many employers up and down the country who are looking for bigger premises. If they decide to move to premises not occupied as offices or shops at the passing of the Bill they will have to comply with the 40-square-foot formula straight away. If they find premises which were already in use as offices or shops at the key date it is very unlikely that they will take out a lease for property which will be statutorily too small for them within a short period of time.
In other words, the reduction of the original period of grace from five years to three years will have a general quickening effect throughout the three-year period. I think this will be accentuated by the fact that many occupiers will prefer to make an early move rather than possibly find themselves at the tail-end of the queue for new premises at the end of three years. I would suggest that when we consider whether a further reduction is reasonable there are also other considerations. First, and this is a point that I made in Committee, the building industry is far from under-loaded, and I do not think it would be wise to speed up the additions to its load which will result from the passage of this Bill. Second, the planning and carrying into effect of extensions or alterations to premises take time. Third, a shorter period of grace, as wanted by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, might cause uncertainty among occupiers as to whether they will be able to get exemption certificates at the end of the period. This might reduce their demands for new staff.
Finally, we must not ignore subsection (1) of the clause. Lord Carrington's Amendment, to which your Lordships have just agreed, has strengthened this subsection, and it will be made effective as soon as the Bill is brought into operation, so that great overcrowding leading to a risk of injury to health will be an offence without delay. So I am convinced that it would not be wise to reduce the period of grace further, and I think we have gone as far as we ought in accepting the Amendment in another place. Again, therefore, I must advise your Lordships, as I did in Committee, not to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 [Temperature]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, moved to add at the end of subsection (3) of this clause,
"it shall be a duty of the employer to allow such persons reasonable access to any such means of warming themselves."
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, promised, after listening to all the views expressed, to reconsider the point to see whether we could devise a form of words which would strengthen the protection given, and I believe that the Amendment meets the undertaking given by my noble friend.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, at end insert—
("(6) It shall be the duty of the employer of persons for whom means of enabling them to warm themselves are provided in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section to afford them reasonable opportunities for using those means, and if he fails so to do he shall be guilty of an offence.")—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Newton, for the work they have done in obtaining this important concession? I thank them very much indeed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supply of drinking water]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has given me notice that he wishes to move a manuscript Amendment in lieu of the Amendment printed on the Order Paper.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, This is an Amendment to paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Clause 11 which deals with the supply of drinking water. Subsection (3) deals with drinking vessels, and paragraph (b) deals with the facilities for washing up drinking vessels. As the paragraph now reads, the facilities are to be for rinsing them in drinking water. Drinking water presumably means cold water. It seems to me, therefore, that an employer who provides hot water for washing-up drinking tumblers would still, under this paragraph, be required to provide, in addition, cold drinking water for washing up. I cannot think the Government intended this to be the case. Therefore, the usefulness of this Amendment, which substitutes the expression "clean water" for "drinking water" is that it

47
will make it abundantly clear that employers who provide hot water for washing up will not in addition be required to provide drinking water for washing up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 45, leave out "drinking" and insert "clean".—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has a point and his Amendment meets it admirably. I am happy to accept it.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the First Lord. This is an experience which I have never enjoyed before.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Sitting facilities]:
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, we had an interesting debate at the Committee stage on an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, supported by Lord Shepherd and my noble friend Lord Hawke, as a result of which my noble friend Lord Carrington said that he would consider whether he could meet at least some of the points put forward. This Amendment is the result of that consideration. It provides that where there are reasonable opportunities for sitting without detriment to the work, seats have to be provided at suitable places conveniently accessible to the employed persons. This will therefore deal with the possibility that employed persons will not be able to use opportunities for sitting because the seats are located in inaccessible positions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 4, after ("use") insert (",at suitable places conveniently accessible to them,").—(Lord Denham.)
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this Amendment, and other Amendments which are consequential upon it, meet the point which we raised in Committee, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having conceded it now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. There is no change in the intention of this provision, but we want to make it clearer that a lesser ratio than one to three seats to persons
48
employed would not be deemed sufficient for the purpose of subsection (1). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out from ("it") to end of line 14 and insert ("facilities provided for their use in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed not to be sufficient if the number of seats provided and the number of the persons employed are in less ratio than 1 to 3").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Regulations for securing health and safety]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will remember moving a new clause at the Committee stage which would have given the Minister power to make regulations extending to disabled or other specified persons the prohibition on young persons cleaning moving machinery if to do so would expose them to danger. The noble Lord withdrew his Amendment on my undertaking that I would put down a suitable Amendment on Report. In point of fact, the general power which we take under this Amendment goes rather wider than that for which the noble Lord asked in his Amendment, and I therefore hope that it will meet his point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, after ("persons") insert (",or persons of any class,").—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. This is my first success on this Bill, and I thank him for it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the Question is put, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether he is aware that during Committee stage and Report in another place concern was expressed in regard to the position of women who are expecting, or have recently given birth to a child. It was felt, fairly unanimously, I think, except perhaps for some lady Members, that we should have special provision in this Bill relating to women in that class or condition. In reply, the Minister said that there was a Bill dealing with this subject before the House, but I understand that that Bill has now run into difficulties and it not likely now to come before your Lordships' House. May I

49
take it, therefore, that if the Minister thought fit to make provision for women within six or seven weeks of childbirth, he could do so within the terms of this Amendment?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if, by leave of the House, I may answer that point, I do not think so. I asked the lawyers to look into this and I am told that it would be taking the words of this Amendment rather too far to interpret them as including women in this category. But, of course, the Government have been watching what has been happening in another place to Lord Balniel's Bill which, rather surprisingly, has run into difficulty. We are considering this matter, and it is the Government's view that this is primarily a health matter and would not be entirely appropriate in this Bill. We feel that we must give general consideration to a measure at another time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 39, leave out ("that class") and insert ("the class to which the regulations apply").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [First aid: general provisions]:
5.7 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, to leave out all words after "this Act applies" in subsection (1) down to the end of subsection (6), and to insert:
"there shall be provided and maintained so as to be readily accessible a first-aid box or cupboard of the prescribed standard, and where more than one hundred and fifty persons are employed an additional box or cupboard for every additional one hundred and fifty persons.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section the number of persons employed in the premises shall be taken to be the largest number of persons employed therein at any one time, and any fraction of one hundred and fifty shall be reckoned as one hundred and fifty.
(3) Nothing except appliances or requisites for first aid shall be kept in a first-aid box or cupboard.
(4) Each first-aid box or cupboard shall be placed under the charge of a responsible person who shall, in the case of premises
50
where more than fifty persons or more than such lower number of persons as the Minister may by regulations prescribe, are employed, be trained in first-aid treatment, and the persons in charge shall always be readily available during working hours.
(5) A notice shall be affixed in every room stating the name of the person in charge of the first-aid box or cupboard provided in respect of that room.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4) of this section a person shall not be deemed to be trained in first-aid treatment unless he satisfies the prescribed conditions.
(7) Where a contravention of subsection (4) of this section is committed through a failure to comply with so much thereof as requires the person in charge of a first-aid box or cupboard to be trained in first-aid treatment, it shall be a defence in any proceedings for the contravention to prove that the accused made all reasonable efforts to secure compliance but was unable to do so."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of which I gave the noble Lord notice on Committee stage, without actually putting down an Amendment. I am the first to admit that in the vast majority of shops and offices the risk of industrial injury is slighter than in factories and workshops; but with the development of mechanisation in the office, particularly on the accountancy side, large offices are tending to become more like workshops than what we used to regard as the normal office, working with pen and pencil. This Bill is much weaker than the Factories Acts and what I have tried to do here is to insert in it Section 61 of the Factories Act.
The best of employers now encourage members of their staffs, by providing special facilities and sometimes added privileges, to become skilled in first aid and maintain their skill, either through the St. John Ambulance Brigade or the British Red Cross, and to be available to assist the staff and make arrangements for any injured person to be passed on to hospital or to a doctor. But this is equally required for other offices. Just as some employers try to do in factories at the moment, some employers provide a first aid box in the office, or a few bandages, some cotton wool and a bottle of iodine in a cupboard, which any Tom, Dick or Harry can try to use. This is the wrong way to go about it. More damage can be done with a little knowledge in the field of first aid than if an injured person is left alone and simply sent off to hospital. What I am trying to do here is to institute a regular system

51
for the provision of first aid equipment, the correct management of that equipment and the availability of suitable persons to render first aid as and when it is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 10, leave out from beginning of line 11 to end of line 24 on page 17 and insert the said words and subsections.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the last half-hour has been so harmonious that I hope I shall not change the atmosphere by saying that I do not think I can accept the noble Lord's Amendment. But I do so for these reasons. He gave notice that he was going to raise this matter, as he said, during the Committee stage, and we have been looking at the point. What the noble Lord is really trying to do is to include in the Bill subsections (1) to (7) of Section 61 of the Factories Act, which for the reasons he has given, he regards as preferable to the existing provisions. But the Bill is drafted in a different way from the Factories Act, and it is not always very satisfactory to take a section from another Act and attempt to drop it into place, without modification, inside an entirely different framework. In drafting Clause 24, the draftsman has naturally had regard to Section 61 of the Factories Act, but he has, of course, used language which is more apt to the structure of this Bill. One example of this is subsection (7) of the Amendment, which is unnecessary because there is a similar provision in general terms in Clause 66.
But apart from these drafting changes—and I know that this is only incidental to the point the noble Lord was making—there are two points of policy in the Amendment which the Government would find it difficult to accept. The first, and minor, of the two is the requirement in subsection (5) that a notice stating the name of the person in charge of the first-aid box should be displayed in every room. I do not think this is unreasonable in the context of large factory workrooms, but I should not have thought it was necessary or desirable to insist on such a notice being placed, for example, in every room of a modern tower block of offices. As at present drafted, subsection (5) of Clause 24 requires a notice to be placed in such a position as to be
52
easily seen and read by the persons employed to work in the premises. The notice might, for example, be placed on a notice board in a suitable part of the premises, and I should have thought that was an adequate requirement for offices and shops.
But the more important difference—and this is the one the noble Lord has in mind—between the Amendment he has moved and Clause 24 is the requirement in subsection (4) of the Amendment that a person trained in first aid should be provided on the same scale as in the Factories Act; that is, where more than 50 persons are employed. As the Bill is at present drafted, a person trained in first aid is required in premises employing more than 150 persons, although this figure can be lowered by regulations. I do not think I could accept the higher standard which the noble Lord wishes to write into the Bill. As he has admitted, accidents are much less likely to occur in offices and shops than in factories, and I believe that the scale of provision already in the Bill should suffice. I think all your Lordships will agree that we must be careful not to make these provisions too stringent on employers. For those reasons, I cannot accept this Amendment. But I would assure the noble Lord that, certainly in my opinion but, much more important, in the opinion of those who are going to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act, it is felt that the provisions in the Bill will ensure that adequate first-aid protection is afforded.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that even at this late stage the noble Lord will not wholly reject the arguments put forward by my noble friend. It may well be that the exact provisions of the Factories Act are not quite suitable at this point, although the Government have not hesitated to use the argument in favour of those sections which they have adopted. Nonetheless, I cannot see how they have hit upon this particular different figure. I want to put again to the noble Lord the argument behind this Amendment. The whole idea about industrial health and its care is changing. It is no longer only a question of treating accidents. At the risk of repeating what I have said before, I would say that I believe that one of the most important facets in the health side will be in the development of what might be called an industrial health service for

53
ordinary ailments. This is something which I know, from direct experience in an organisation which employs trained sisters, doctors and so on, has great advantages. Obviously, we cannot impose standards of this kind throughout the country, but I would urge the Government to look at this matter again. The Bill does not go quite far enough. Moreover (I will not go into the details, but the noble Lord knows that we have had some correspondence on the subject), I do not like the drafting of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Lindgren put some quite powerful arguments, and although some of them might be "shot down" technically, I think that their basis is sound. I would even now ask if the noble Lord cannot offer to meet us in some way, and, if not, I should be rather inclined to press the matter further.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may speak again, when the noble Lord makes an appeal of this kind it is churlish to sit still and say nothing; and I should be sorry to be considered that. We have looked at this point very carefully. One of the reasons—although not the overriding reason—why we have decided to raise the figure of 50 in the Factories Act to 150 is that when the outline of the Bill was circulated for comment to organisations concerned there were a good many representations that there was already difficulty in getting volunteers to take training courses. This was not a question of employers' being unwilling to release staff for training, but simply that volunteers for training were very hard to come by. We felt that it would be unrealistic to put too high a target. One must have some regard to the number of volunteers one can get to train in first aid. There were considerations of this kind. I should, I think, be misleading the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, if I suggested that the Government are likely to change their mind; but if it will give him any consolation, I will of course look at it again.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I accept his statement that the Government have looked at this matter. I admit that it is a difficult position. I agree that there is difficulty in securing volunteers. One of the tragic things in present-day circumstances in all spheres is that the number of people
54
prepared to come forward to undertake service for others for nothing is declining. On the previous discussion, I mentioned the fact that I had been associated with the St. John Ambulance Brigade for well over 40 years. But even in the railways, where there is encouragement from the employer of added facilities, inducements and concessions in regard to those who undertake first aid, the volunteers are not so easily obtained as they were in the old days. I accept all that. But it is because of this that I do not think we should give up easily. The more encouragement can be given to employers to provide facilities for learning first aid, the better. It is a service that, once it has been started on by the individual, can be useful to him in spheres outside the field of his employment as well as in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the question of notices in every room. Here is where the difficulty arises. Staff changes are pretty frequent in offices as in industrial organisations. It is quite good to have first-aid equipment, stretchers and everything else, and a competent person available on the floor down below, but it is very little use if somebody suddenly throws a fit or falls down and hurts himself and nobody knows where to go to get the assistance of the skilled person, or the benefit of the equipment which is available. I here-fore, from one's experience of changes of staff, one feels it is desirable that it should be there. In all the circumstances, I will not press this Amendment to a Division. I accept the noble Lord's undertaking that he will look at it again, and if he can give some added facility I hope he will. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD 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

55
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: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg leave to move this Amendment. This is an Amendment which I moved on Committee stage, and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, went so far as to say that he would not necessarily recommend his friends to reject it. Therefore I hope he is in a position to concede this important point. In brief, this is a question of simplification. Under various other provisions the London County Council are required to provide in many premises fire escapes of a particular standard. What we wish to do is to see that the certificate which has been issued by the London County Council is recognised by the provisions of this Bill—in other words, a question of simplification. I hope the Government can respond to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lard, Lord Shepherd, kindly withdrew his Amendment in Committee when I gave an undertaking to consider the matter rather more carefully than I had been able to do. Since then, I have considered it very carefully indeed, but I have reluctantly concluded that the balance of advantage is against accepting the Amendment, and I shall hope to carry the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and your Lordships with me in explaining why I have reached that conclusion. I may have to make a slightly longer speech than I have earlier this afternoon.
We are not convinced that Section 44 of the Factories Act, 1961, which is based on a provision contained in the Factories Act, 1937, in very different circumstances, is really the most suitable one for this Bill. There are a number of ways in which I think an arrangement on the
56
lines envisaged in the noble Lord's Amendment would be unsatisfactory. The first one is this. Under the London Building Act, the owner is responsible for seeing that his building is provided with adequate means of escape. But under this Bill there will be many buildings in single occupation where the occupier will be responsible for satisfying the fire authority as to the means of escape. If, therefore, the Amendment were accepted, confusion would arise as to the respective responsibilities of owners and occupiers in London.
Secondly, approval of new buildings as regards means of escape is made under the London Building Act at the planning stage, and according to subsection (1) of the proposed new clause a fire certificate under the Bill would be automatically given in respect of such a building. It is not clear, however, from reading the London Building Act, that the same attention to the operational use of the building is given before approving the means of escape as would be given under this Bill. By this, I mean a careful study of the numbers employed in each part of the building, the siting of machinery and equipment, the storage of flammable materials and the extent to which members of the public may reasonably be resorting to the premises, which are all vital points and would be taken into account by the fire authority under the Bill.
Thirdly, the London Building Act provides, in Section 34(6), for exemption from its provisions as to means of escape in new buildings. There is no power to exempt premises from the means of escape provisions under the Bill, and I am wondering whether the noble Lord had considered this implication.
Fourthly, it would appear, from Section 35 of the London Building Act, that an owner of an old building may assume that his building complies with the provisions of the Act if the London County Council have not served on him a notice requiring additional means of escape to be provided. Would it be right to assume, without further examination whatsoever, that all old buildings in respect of which no notice has been served under the London Building Act are entitled automatically to receive a fire certificate under this Bill? Surely there must be no doubt at all that the

57
same standards of protection from fire risks should apply to people working in London buildings as in buildings in any other part of the country.
Yet another difficulty may arise if the certification requirements of the Bill are to be extended to other classes of premises, for example, basement coffee bars under the powers provided in Clause 29(9). We are not at all sure, if the noble Lord's Amendment were adopted, whether such an extension of the fire procedure would effectively apply to such classes of premises in London. Perhaps I could emphasise that in London the same authority will be responsible for the fire certificate provisions of the Bill and for administering the London Building Act. Owners and occupiers are not, therefore, likely to be faced with conflicting requirements, because it should be possible for the Council to make such administrative arrangements as they think fit to harmonise standards under the two Acts so long as these do not run counter to any other requirements in the Bill.
Lastly, I would invite attention to Clause 77 of the Bill which provides that a person required to make alterations to a building under a local Act will not be penalised for not making these alterations if they would involve a contravention of the Bill. This gives owners security against the imposition of conflicting requirements in the London Building Act and the Bill although, as I have said, it is unlikely that such a conflict would ever occur in practice. Those are the reasons why I concluded that the balance of advantage is against the noble Lord's Amendment. At any rate, I hope he will realise from what I have said that I have looked at this matter very carefully and with a wish to accede to it if I thought it was, in all the circumstances, a sensible thing to do.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for going into this matter so thoroughly. He appears to have a very strong case for the rejection of the Amendment. Therefore I do not propose to press it this evening. I will look at his words carefully and perhaps consult some of my friends between now and the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Power of the Minister to grant exemptions from certain requirements of Act]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment results from an undertaking that I gave during the Committee stage to consider whether the Minister's powers of exemption covered classes of rooms. The purpose is to enable the Minister to exempt classes of rooms from the requirements of Clauses 5 (2) and 6 (which deal with space and temperature) by orders under Clause 45. The Amendment results from our consideration of the discussion which we had in Committee on an Amendment to Clause 5 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. The effect of the present Amendment is to make the power of exemption more selective, since we think that there may well be classes of rooms which might reasonably be exempted, but where a general exemption for the whole premises from the space or temperature requirements would not be justified. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 2, leave out from ("exempt") to the first ("in") in line 5 and insert—
("(a) from all or any of the requirements imposed by sections 5(2) and 6 of this Act, premises of any class or rooms of any class;
(b) from all or any of the requirements imposed by sections 9 and 10 of this Act premises of any class ").—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am most grateful again for the consideration given in this Bill between the period of the Committee stage and this stage and I desire to express those thanks to the Minister.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Power of authorities who enforce Act to grant exemptions from certain requirements thereof]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I would, if your Lordships will allow me, move this and the next ten Amendments together because they are all on the same point I have just made on the previous Amendment. The purpose is to confer on enforcing authorities the power to exempt rooms in individual premises in exactly the same way as classes of rooms in premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 33, leave out from ("may") to ("compliance") in line 35 and insert—
("(a) exempt the premises or any room therein from all or any of the requirements imposed by the said sections 5(2) and 6;
(b) exempt the premises from all or any of the requirements imposed by the said section 9:
if satisfied that, in the circumstances affecting the subject of the exemption,").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 36, line 44, after the second ("of") insert (",or of a room in,")
Page 37, line 16, after ("of") insert (",or of a room in,")
Page 37, line 38, after the second ("of") insert (",or of a room in,")
Page 38, line 25, after ("of") insert (",or of a room in,")
Page 38, line 37, after ("of") insert (",or of a room in,")
Page 39, line 1, leave out ("exempted premises") and insert ("premises to which the exemption relates")
Page 39, line 17, after ("if") insert (",or of a room in,")
Page 39, line 44, after ("of") insert (",or of a room in,")
Page 40, line 27, after the first ("to") insert (",or to a room in,")
Page 40, line 36, after the second ("of") insert (",or of a room in,").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Authorities who are to enforce Act]:
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (4), after "sections" to insert "28". The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if, at the same time, we discussed the related Amendment, No. 44 on the Marshalled List. Clause 28, which was inserted in the Bill at Report stage in another place following suggestions from both sides of the House, requires all premises to have such means of escape as are reasonable in the circumstances. The object of these Amendments is to provide for this clause to be enforced by the fire authority in the premises specified in subsections (4) and (6) of Clause 52. These premises comprise offices and shops in factories and in other premises covered by the Factories Act, railway premises, including
60
coal depôts owned by railway undertakings and also certain offices occupied by them, and offices and shops in mines and quarries. We think this is a reasonable arrangement because the fire authority is already responsible for inspecting the means of escape in these premises under Clauses 29 and 30 wherever the premises are subject to certification, and it is obviously convenient to have all means of escape matters dealt with by one authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 17, after ("sections") insert ("28").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: This Amendment is designed to correct a printing error, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 21, leave out ("purpose") and insert ("purposes").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: The object of this Amendment is to provide that wholesale warehouses, apart from those in docks, will be inspected under the Bill by local authorities and not by the Factory Inspectorate. Your Lordships may recall that in Committee I moved Amendments to Clauses 1 and 74, as they now are, extending the definition of warehouses under the Bill, and removing certain warehouses covered by the Factories Act from the scope of that Act so that they may be dealt with under this Bill. However, we do not think it is logical to leave the enforcement of the Bill in this limited group of warehouses to the Factory Inspectorate, and the Amendment has the effect of transferring responsibility for enforcement to the local authorities who are already responsible for inspecting other classes of warehouses under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 30, at end insert (",but not including such a building or part of a building as, by virtue of those provisions, is excluded from the said section 125(1)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 40. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 2, after ("section") insert ("28").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Provisions for securing discharge of local authorities' duties in uniform manner]:
5.37 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a) and insert instead:
"(a) may make regulations relating to—

(i) the qualifications to be held by inspectors;

(ii) the mode of appointment and terms of tenure of the office of inspector; and

(iii) the manner of the discharge of those duties and the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act on inspectors appointed by local authorities and the London County Council."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House certainly has got its skates on. I appear to have missed a very important Amendment; therefore I am afraid I shall have to come back to it at the next stage of the Bill, and I apologise for this. The Amendment I now move is not of my own drafting; I have taken it straight out of the Shops Bill that we had in front of your Lordships' House some years ago. The Government, I am sure, will recognise the importance of inspectors in regard to the enforcement of the provisions within this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may remember that I moved an Amendment to emphasise the importance with which we regard the inspector. That Amendment was not accepted and, after careful consideration, I felt that the need for the clarification of the position of inspectors was so important that I should try to raise this matter again. I decided, therefore, to use the words that appeared in the Government's own Shops Bill, which, unfortunately, was not passed by the Commons owing to lack of time.
What is the purpose of this subsection? It is that the Minister may—and I agree it is purely permissive in the circumstances—make regulations regarding the qualifications to be held by the inspectors. At the present moment there is no standing for the inspectors, but it may well come, just as we have recognised certain degrees and standards for the factory inspector. I think this will come in due course and, therefore, I hope that
62
the Government will see that there is a case for the Minister to make at some future date a regulation regarding the qualifications to be held by inspectors.
We come next to the second paragraph: that is, the mode of appointment and terms of tenure of the office of inspector. I think it is recognised that the position of a shops and offices inspector may be very much like the position held in the early days under the Factories Act. It is not going to be an easy operation for the inspector. He has, in the first instance, to try to persuade the employer to carry out the provisions of this Bill. We do not expect and we should not hope, as I said on the Committee stage, that there would be questions of court proceedings at the first instance. Encouragement and the like will be used by the inspector. But there might well come a time when the inspector may have to advise the local authority that court action is necessary.
This may well mean taking action against a shopkeeper, perhaps a shopkeeper who is influential in the affairs of local government. Therefore one has to think of the position of the inspector as and when he may give this advice to his employer. He may find that his circumstances become very, very difficult. In fact, one can guess that perhaps on occasions there will be a feeling that pressure is being brought to bear upon an inspector by persons in the local authority or close to it to take a different approach to his duties. I would not believe that there would be many local authorities who would do such a thing. But one knows how suspicion does arise. If I may say so, one can see to-day some of the effects of what is called satire, the implication of a few words being put across which mean something quite different—perhaps not different for the person using them, but different from the meaning of the words if they came out of the mouth of a person in the ordinary way. Therefore, I feel we should try to put the inspector and his employer quite clearly beyond any imputation and query.
Therefore I feel we should put into this Bill the provision that the Minister can, if he feels it necessary after experience of the operation of this Bill, make regulations on the mode of appointment, and in particular the terms of the tenure of office, of inspectors. The words in

63
sub-paragraph (iii) are already in the Bill and therefore I do not need to speak on them. I really do feel, in view of the importance of the inspector, that this provision should be in. He is going to be called upon to enforce the various provisions in this Bill. In the early days it may be an uphill battle; it may be very difficult; he may make enemies. I should hope he would do his duty. But I think, on the other side, that we should do what we can to see that there is no question, no imputation either on the inspector or on the local authority, regarding any action taken by the inspector or local authority in carrying out the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 24, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, proposes, as he has told your Lordships, to give the Minister two new powers of regulation, relating to the qualifications of inspectors and to their appointment and tenure of office. I agree, and I think everyone will agree, that it is important that this Bill should be enforced by suitable staff, and the noble Lord made a perfectly fair and good point in referring to the provision to this effect which was included in the Government's 1957 Shops Bill. But sometimes one has second thoughts about these things, and the Government have had second thoughts about this. On balance, we think that the advantage is against conferring this particular regulation-making power on the Minister, but I hope to be able to show the noble Lord that his object is sufficiently met by the existing provisions of the Bill.
Clause 57 enables the Minister to appoint officers for the purpose of assisting local authorities to discharge their duties under the Bill in a uniform manner. If the Minister were informed that a local authority were not discharging their duties adequately because the staff employed were not suitable, his officers could investigate the problem under Clause 57, and it would be open to the Minister to publish his officers' report if he wished. I have little doubt, and I think the noble Lord has little doubt, that this sort of
64
case will be exceptional, and that the great majority of local authorities will make sure that they recruit suitable persons to enforce the Bill. Indeed, I think it is in their interests to do so. For this reason we do not think it proper to impose a general requirement of this kind on local authorities. I might remind the noble Lord of what my noble friend Lord Newton said during the Second Reading of the Bill, when he made it clear that Clause 57 would not be enforced in a way which would tend to undermine the independence and responsibility of local authorities. But at the same time the Government hope to co-operate with them closely in enforcing the Bill and to support their work by advice, discussion and the circulation of information.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will appreciate that the 1957 Shops Bill contained no provision corresponding to Clause 57, but sought to achieve the same general end by means of the particular regulation-making powers that he is seeking to put in the Bill. I think the same general principle applies to the proposal to enable the Minister to make regulations about the appointment and tenure of offices of inspectors. Indeed, I would have thought that these matters were particularly within the discretion of local authorities in consultation with the staff associations concerned, and really rather unsuitable for central regulation.
So it seems to me—and we have thought about this very carefully—that there are two ways in which we can achieve what the noble Lord and I wish to achieve: either we can do it with these permissive regulation-making powers which he has described and put in his Amendment, or we can do it under the general powers in the Bill under Clause 57. I do not know whether I have convinced the noble Lord, but I am sure that, in so far as he is aiming at a reasonably uniform standard of administration, it can be achieved through the existing provisions of this Bill. I hope when he has considered what I have said he will withdraw his Amendment, in view of the explanation I have given.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make one point? Unfortunately—I think it is a matter of regret—not all officers and local authorities are members of organisations. There are some who, for

65
one reason or another, have stayed outside the particular trade union. Whether they are right or not, they are in that position and could be extremely vulnerable if they did not have the organisation behind them. Can the noble Lord say, if I accept what he has said—that the Minister would obtain information from his own officers if there appeared to be an infringement or failure to carry out the provisions, or if the inspector had been put into such a position by his local authority that he was unable to carry out the duty imposed upon the inspector as much as upon the local authority—whether the Minister has the power to rectify the position? This is the crux so far as I can see. Has the Minister power to rectify the position between the inspector and his employer, the local authority?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think so. I give the noble Lord the assurance that there is this alternative of doing it in one of these two ways, under regulation-making powers or under Clause 57. The Government decided that on the whole, it was better to do it under Clause 57—not that what the noble Lord is speaking of is unnecessary, but this is the better way, and it will be the intention to see that it is carried out.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.50 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 57 to insert the following new clause
Protection for local authorities' inspectors
".—(1) An inspector appointed under section 52(1) or (5) of this Act shall not he personally liable in respect of any act done by him in the execution or purported execution of this Act and within the scope of his employment, if he did that act in the honest belief that his duty under this Act required or entitled him to do it:>
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as relieving an authority by whom an inspector is so appointed from any liability in respect of acts of their officers.
(2) Where an action has been brought against such an inspector in respect of an act done by him in the execution or purported execution of this Act and the circumstances are such that he is not legally entitled to require the authority by whom he was appointed to indemnify him, the authority may, nevertheless indemnify him against the whole or part of any damages and costs or expenses which he may have been ordered
66
to pay or may have incurred, if they are satisfied that he honestly believed that the act complained of had been within the scope of his employment and that his duty under this Act required or entitled him to do it."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am still dealing with the position of the local inspector. As the House will remember, I spoke of the problem of the inspector in the early days of the operation of this Bill in enforcing the provisions of the Bill, and it may well be possible that in his early days, when perhaps there is not so much case law (if that is the right phrase), the inspector, in going into premises, carrying out a survey and making a report, may have proceedings taken against him, or he may take particular action in the course of his duty which again may result in his being brought to court. The purpose of this Amendment is to give protection to the local authority inspector.
I have not drafted this Amendment. As with the previous Amendment, I took it straight out of the Shops Bill which was before this House some years ago. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment because I believe it will give considerable protection to the inspector and perhaps make his life a little easier when he comes to a decision and there is a doubt about which way he should report. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 57 insert the new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think there is considerable force in what the noble Lord has said, and I am pleased to accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Restriction of disclosure of information]:
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved to leave out "criminal proceedings which may be taken whether pursuant to this Act or otherwise" and to insert" legal proceedings, including arbitrations,". The noble Lord said: "My Lords, as Clause 58 is at present drafted it makes it an offence for an inspector to disclose any information obtained by him in any premises entered in the course of his I duty, except in the performance of his

67
duty, or for the purposes of proceedings pursuant to the Bill, "including arbitrations, or of any criminal proceedings", and so on. The effect of this Amendment is to enable him to disclose information in civil proceedings not pursuant to the Bill.
The Amendment is, in fact, put down in answer to a point made on the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, opposite. When this clause was discussed in another place representations were made to my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour—again from both sides of the House—that the restriction on the disclosure of information in civil proceedings not pursuant to the Bill might work unfairly—for example, it would not allow art inspector to give evidence in personal injury cases not involving a breach of statutory duty even though he had investigated the cause of the accident. This restriction might work to the disadvantage of either the employer or employee. It is possible that, as a result of this Amendment, inspectors might get involved in purely private civil actions, but we think this is unlikely: and in view of the expression of opinion by both Houses and by my noble kinsman behind me, we think that the decision to put down this Amendment is right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 24, leave out from ("any") to end of line 26 and insert the said new words—(Lord Carrington.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Carrington for this Amendment; but I wonder whether, further to clarify this matter, he can answer two questions. The first is the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the Committee stage, about the inspector who might appear before a committee or a subcommittee of his council—indeed, the council itself—on disciplinary action or something of that nature. I wonder whether, even with my noble friend's Amendment, that would be a legal proceeding or an arbitration, and thus be covered by the words of his Amendment to the Bill as it now stands, in which case he would still be at a disadvantage
68
and would not find it possible to explain what he had done.
The other point (I do not think it is altogether fanciful) is this. The parallel section in the Factories Act does not take so much care to define the places where the inspector is allowed to make disclosures. What it does is to qualify the information which he is not allowed to disclose. In this Bill the information is entirely unqualified. It is not a question of trade secrets or patent processes or something of that nature. The word "information" has no adjective in front of it: it is not simply a matter of the number of stairs, or whether a lift is there, electrically or hand-worked. It also includes things like the names of the manager or the names of the people in the office. All this would be information which the inspector would gain from his duty on the premises, and he is not allowed to disclose this to his friends, his family, or in the "pub" or anywhere else, however innocent it may be, except on pain of a fine of £100 or three months' imprisonment. It seems to me that Parliament ought to be a little more exact in laying down these penalties on inspectors. Surely, the answer to this must be to try to define the word "information" and make quite clear what sort of information the Government have in mind in this Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will give further consideration to this point. He has been most accommodating in the last half an hour, and clearly this is the sort of point that could give trouble in the future. I have been looking in the Factories Act for the equivalent section but, unfortunately, have not been able to find it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is Section 161, or something like that.
LORD SHACKLETON: There is no time for me to look at it now, but I will look again. But perhaps the First Lord would listen to these points, which clearly could give rise to difficulties. I suppose that there would be nothing now to stop a shop inspector appearing before a special tribunal set up under the Special Tribunals Act: this would be a "legal proceeding". But I hope that the other point of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will be considered, and that there will still be time to make an Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the: first point that my noble friend made, I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought he was right and that the circumstances he envisaged were excluded under my Amendment. This was as far as we thought we could go in this direction. With regard to his second point, I must say that I rather wish that the noble Lord had put down an Amendment, because it is difficult to judge this matter without seeing a proposal on paper. I think it would have been better, in some ways, if he had put down an Amendment. However, I will consider, between now and Third Reading, whether anything further needs to be done about it, though I suggest that, as a general proposition, it is undesirable, when we have had both a Committee stage and a Report stage, to put down Amendments on Third Reading.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I might get this point clear. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that the inspector might be held to be proceeding contrary to this particular provision if he disclosed his information to his council or sub-committee in the council. I should be surprised if that were so, because they are, in fact, the people who have to enforce this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington—I realise that it was on the spur of the moment—has said that this would be outside his Amendment. If that is the case it would be an extraordinary position that the inspector, who is an employee of the local authority, those who have to enforce this provision, could be at variance with this provision if he disclosed the evidence in his recommendation that proceedings be taken.
LORD CARRINGTON: That would be in the performance of his duty.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes; but the point was made, and the noble Lord thought that it was outside the province of the Amendment. My only hope is that the evidence that this man may have—the matter could come under the word "arbitration"—could still be used as evidence if there were any dispute with his local authority on the question of his employment, if he had been dismissed because of an action he had taken. In a case of arbitration set up, for example, between his union and his employer, he obviously should be quite free to be able
70
to bring that information before a particular body. I think the question of arbitration would cover that particular point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Offences]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 39, after ("4") insert (",5, 6(1) to (5), 7").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 40, at end insert ("(1) and (2)").—(Lord Newton.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, drafting of what? I am not quite clear?
LORD NEWTON: The purpose of Clause 62 is to settle responsibility for contraventions of particular provisions of the Bill in cases where the provisions do not themselves say who is to be guilty of an offence. The reference to Clause 48 in the Bill at the moment should be limited to subsections (1) and (2) because subsection (3) already places responsibility on employers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Application to the Crown]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is an Amendment consequential on Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 27, after ("of") insert (",or of a room in,").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Exclusion of application to factories and to parts below ground of mines]:
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 21, at beginning insert ("With the exception of section 74(3) of this Act,").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Powers of Parliament of Northern Ireland]:
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 17, leave out ("81 and 82") and insert ("82 and 83").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Interpretation]:
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after "Act" and to insert:
"any such person as follows shall be taken to be employed, namely,—

(a) a person appointed under section 6 or 7 of the Registration Service Act 1953 who exercises and performs his powers and duties in premises provided and maintained by the council within whose area his district or sub-district is situate;

(b) a person elected under section 8 of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1854 who exercises his functions in premises provided and maintained by a local authority;

(c) a member of a police force maintained by a police authority."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to extend the coverage of this Bill to persons familiarly known as registrars of births, deaths and marriages. The staff employed by local authorities are, of course, covered by this Bill, but superintendent registrars and registrars are not employed under a contract of service, and they are not covered by the definition of an "employed" person in Clause 89(1). This Amendment therefore deems those who perform their duties in premises provided and maintained by a county council or local authority to be "employed persons" for the purposes of this Bill and so brings them into its ambit.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 11, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 12 and insert the said new words.(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to move a manuscript Amendment which is consequential on Amendment No. 23. My attention has been drawn to the need for this Amendment because we have widened the reference to "class of premises" and need to widen Clause 89(5) to include classes of rooms.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 13, after ("premises") insert (",rooms").—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has discussed this with my noble friend.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord has not discussed it with me.
LORD SHACKLETON: I feel that manuscript Amendments are objectionable. I believe that at least there could have been some exchange on this. It is, of course, not possible to consider it at this moment; I have not the slightest idea what it means.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I entirely agree that the practice is objectionable, and I apologise to your Lordships, but the Parliamentary draftsman has only just discovered that this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which I moved to Amendment No. 23 in response to an undertaking which I gave to noble Lords opposite. In effect, this is to satisfy the Opposition. Unfortunately, this particular Amendment, the last one on the Order Paper, was omitted and it was not discovered till this afternoon that it was necessary. I must apologise to your Lordships.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we accept that from the noble Lord. No doubt we shall look at it to-morrow in print. My noble friend was quite right to raise the matter because this is the second manuscript Amendment that has been moved. I hope it will not become a practice. We hope that this will be the last time it happens.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CORN RENTS BILL
6.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the Second Reading of the Corn Rents Bill, which I rise to move, I hope will not tax your Lordships unduly or keep you long, but, however great the pressure of Business or however late the hour, I feel I should spend a few minutes in telling your Lordships what corn rents are all about. Corn rents are a rent charge

73
imposed years ago on certain pieces of property. The annual value of that rent charge varies with the price of corn, in the same way as did the tithe rent charge, until it was stabilised in the first war and finally replaced by annuities in 1936.
Most of the corn rents nowadays, though not all, are owned by the Church of England and collected by the Church Commissioners. Some of your Lordships have met these corn rents before. The first time I met them was at quarter sessions in my county, where we had to deal with a corn rent dependent on the content of a Winchester bushel; and all the work in the office of the clerk of the peace ground to a halt while the best brains got to work on what was a Winchester bushel. I have also heard of disputes in East Anglia—and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, may confirm this—whether or not corn rents should take into account cereal deficiency payments. One's view depends on whether one is a debtor or a creditor.
As with the tithe itself and with the land tax (which, until the present Budget, we had been saddled with since the Marlborough Wars), common sense now demands that there should be a simple means of extinguishing these corn rents by the payment of a lump sum. For good or bad reasons (it does not matter now), this problem of corn rents was never tackled at the time the problem of tithes was tackled in 1936. In theory, it is now possible to extinguish a corn rent, but the procedure, I am told, is so cumbersome that in fact it is nearly always difficult enough to be impracticable. What is more, it involves reference to the Inclosure Acts—Private Acts made at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, copies of which are extremely hard to find.
My Lords, by this time I think that any reader of Trollope's novels will immediately have jumped to the conclusion that the Department responsible for all this must be the Petty Bag Office. But that is not so. The Department which has been responsible hitherto is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and from 1928 to now that Ministry, although they were empowered to lay an order to clear up the matter of corn rents, have found it difficult. I might say, my Lords, that in my experience this
74
is not the only dusty corner in that Ministry which new brooms like the Ryan Report have not touched. I could tell your Lordships of at least another one, but unfortunately that would be out of order. Since this is so I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear that, if this Bill becomes law, the Inland Revenue will take the matter in hand. They have, in fact, been administering the corn rents since April, 1960; and if this Bill passes into law it will now be possible for them to make a scheme to deal with the matter, which, as I say, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have so far failed to do.
So, my Lords, under Clause 1 the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may, and no doubt will, make a new redemption scheme. I imagine that they will work this out with the Church Commissioners and with all other interested parties, and will arrange the scheme in such a way that it can be dealt with in Parliament by the Negative Resolution procedure. Under Clause 2 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are discharged from responsibility in the matter; and in my opinion, as I have just said, high time, too! Clause 3 is formal, though I am sorry that we have to have subsection (7), and that there are still some antiquities which have not yet been cleared up and cannot he brought into this Bill. However, my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in another place that the fact that this Bill was passed would not prevent the matter from receiving further attention and would not impede any further legislation to clear it up. I think your Lordships will be as glad to hear that as I am. This Bill, my Lords, comes to us from another place where, thanks to the good offices of my honourable friend the Member for Windsor, it had a smooth passage. I hope that noble friends in front of me will assist the Bill to have a similar passage here. I hope that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that this Bill should be read a second time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Bridgman.)
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I cannot pretend to speak on this matter with the great expert knowledge of the noble Viscount who has just sat down. A Winchester bushel is something of which I

75
have heard, and I believe seen, but I can say no more about it than that. As for the problems of East Anglia, there undoubtedly are many, and this is probably one of them, though nothing like so serious as the problems which arose at one time with regard to tithe redemption and the payment of tithes. I can only say that this seems to me a thoroughly sensible Bill. I am sorry that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has failed to sweep this out of its dusty corners, and that it has to be handed over to some other Ministry to deal with. But if it is to be dealt with in this apparently comparatively smooth way, my friends and I are happy to see it done.
I rather share the noble Viscount's view about the final paragraph in Clause 3, though possibly it is a pleasant historical relic that the Vicar's Rate in Halifax Act, 1877, should remain. I have, perhaps I might say, been refreshing my memory by looking it up, together with the Kendal Corn Rent Act, 1932—a comparatively recent Act, as some of your Lordships will remember. It is perhaps rather a pity that this cannot be included in this Bill, though, as I say, from an historical point of view there is something to be said for these Acts' remaining, to remind us and our successors of the way things used to be done in the far distant days. As a contribution towards getting this country ready for the '70s, which I gather is the paramount theme at the present time, I am quite sure that this Bill is a very valuable one. I can assure your Lordships that anything we can do to expedite the passage of this important Bill, we shall happily do.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, as my noble and gallant friend has explained, this Bill has been prepared to enable the Inland Revenue to improve the machinery for the redemption and apportionment of corn rents. I do not think your Lordships would wish me to enlarge on what my noble friend has said. I should like
76
merely to repeat here an assurance given in another place, that the acceptance of this Bill will in no way prejudice Government consideration of any wider measure than the extinguishment of corn rents. My Lords, I should like again to welcome this Bill on behalf of the Government.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, by the leave of the House I rise just to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and my noble friend Lord Denham, very shortly, for the support they have given to the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.