OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL

HL Deb 29 April 1963 vol 249 cc31-72

4.8 p.m.

Report stage resumed.

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

Special Provisions as to London

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

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

The noble Lord said: 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 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 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 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 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 moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a) and insert instead: (a) may make regulations relating to—

1. (i) the qualifications to be held by inspectors;
2. (ii) the mode of appointment and terms of tenure of the office of inspector; and
3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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,—

1. (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;
2. (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;
3. (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.