Lords Sitting of 18 March 1963

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

POLICE PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1963
2.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, 1963, be approved. I shall not take up much of your Lordships' time in introducing these Regulations, which are entirely consequential upon the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962. They apply to England, Wales and Scotland. The Police Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland have been consulted and the Regulations go forward with their approval. The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, like previous Pensions (Increase) Acts, applies to police pensioners but not to police widows and dependants who are left to be dealt with by Police Pensions Regulations. This is for technical reasons of drafting: the graduated increases in the Act cannot appropriately be applied to the flat-rate increases in the Regulations and some awards are related to National Insurance rates and are, therefore, increased separately. So it is necessary for us to seek the approval of the House for the Regulations.
The draft Regulations provide that where a widow's pension is related to a proportion of her late husband's pay, then the Act of 1962 shall apply as if the pension were covered by the Act itself. Where a pension or allowance is on a flat rate, a new flat rate is substituted at the maximum rate of 12 per cent. and an age-70 increase of £20 subject to a limitation if the increase exceeds one quarter of the pension. The Regulations also provide that an increase in a child's allowance shall be payable so long as the allowance is payable under the 1962 Regulations. The Regulations are drafted in such a way as to have effect restro-
944
spectively to January 1 of this year, which was the date when the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, came into force. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1963 be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time. At first sight, and at second sight, it may seem strange that the First Lord of the Admiralty should be moving this Bill, and I am afraid I cannot give your Lordships any effective explanation other than that there seem to be too many Bills chasing too few Ministers. The object of this Bill is to provide for the safety, health and welfare of people employed in offices, shops and certain railway premises. It is expected to cover over 8 million workers in over 1 million premises. It greatly extends the existing protection for shop workers and lays down standards for office workers and for railway workers other than those in railway workshops and similar places. These are, of course, already covered by the Factories Act. The Bill is thus a measure to add to the Government's record of social legislation.
As I am sure your Lordships will be aware, this Bill is largely based on the recommendations of the Gowers Committee, and I should like to repeat here the tribute paid by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour in another place to the excellent work of Sir Ernest Gowers and his colleagues. I should like to remind your Lordships that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was a member of that Committee, and a very distinguished one.
Perhaps I might recall the main theme of the Gowers Committee Report so far as offices and shops are concerned, since this sets out clearly the reason why this legislation is necessary. The Committee looked at the existing laws dealing with

945
the health and welfare of office and shop workers, and in particular at the Public Health and Shops Act. They pointed out in paragraph 16 of their Report that, apart from one section of the Shops Act, the main purpose of these measures was to safeguard the general well-being of the community as a whole, and not that of the worker. Even those provisions which were of direct concern to the worker were not framed in such a way as to give him really adequate safeguards. The Committee went on to say that the requirements of the existing law were not very precise and they suggested that the Factories Acts, reflecting as they did many years of practical experience, offered a model for protective legislation of this kind. The Government accept this view and have adapted the requirements of the Factories Act to the premises covered by the Bill wherever it is appropriate to do so.
The Government also decided at an early stage in the preparation of the Bill that the Minister of Labour should be responsible for its administration. This will ensure that the wealth of experience gained in administering the Factories Act can be drawn upon in giving effect to the Bill. The Gowers Committee themselves recognised that the economic situation of the country made immediate action on their proposals impracticable. Nevertheless, during the last ten years the Government have introduced legislation covering some 10 million workers in mining, manufacturing and agriculture, either making new provisions for their welfare or strengthening the protection given them by previous legislation.
I now turn to the description of the main provisions of the Bill. First, Clauses 1 to 3 define its scope. The Bill applies to offices and shops, which are defined in comprehensive terms, and to all railway buildings beside the permanent way unless they are already covered by the Factories Act. Office premises are defined as buildings or parts of buildings used for office purposes, and these purposes are defined as including administration, clerical work, handling money and telephone and telegraph operating. The definition of offices also includes premises occupied together with an office for the purpose of the activities carried on there—for example, a storeroom where stationery is kept. The definition is
946
designed to cover offices which are part of a building used for other purposes, even if it is only a small part—for example, offices in factories, hospitals and clubs. Your Lordships can see, therefore, that the aim is to ensure reasonable standards for all office workers.
Shops are also defined in a comprehensive way, including not only places where retail or wholesale trade is carried on, but also places such as launderettes and dry-cleaning shops. The definition also includes all premises which sell meals or refreshments to the public for their immediate consumption; for example, public houses, cafés, restaurants and hotel bars open to the public, as well as canteens for shop, office or railway staff. Railway premises are defined as railway buildings situated in the immediate vicinity of the permanent way. This would cover, for example, stations, goods-yard buildings and signal boxes.
From these comprehensive definitions two important exclusions are made by Clauses 2 and 3. These are, first, businesses where all the employees are close relatives of the employer; and, secondly, premises where the total amount of time worked by the person or persons employed is normally less than twenty-one hours a week. This excludes from the Bill, for example, a small shop run by an owner with only a little paid help at week-ends. Finally, I should, of course, make it clear that the Bill does not apply to premises where only self-employed persons work.
The Government were pressed in debate in another place to extend' the scope of the Bill to cover a number of other categories of premises. In many of these cases there were special difficulties, and my right honourable friend was concerned to avoid complicating the Bill unduly and to concentrate the resources available to administer its provisions where the need is greatest. However, during the course of proceedings in another place, he accepted that coal depots are in a very special category, and the Bill has therefore been extended to bring them within its scope.
The general provisions of the Bill are set out in Clauses 4 to 27. I should like to refer to two of these which have attracted a good deal of public interest—those relating to overcrowding and temperature. The Bill provides in Clause 5 that

947
employees working in rooms which are not open to the public must be given a minimum amount of space in order to prevent overcrowding. The standard laid down is 40 square feet for each employee, or 400 cubic feet where the ceiling is lower than 10 feet. In addition, all rooms in which persons work are subject to a general requirement prohibiting overcrowding likely to injure health.
Clause 6 deals with room temperatures and requires that there must be a minimum temperature of 16° Centigrade. As a member of the Government, I suppose I have to share the responsibility for making the change from Fahrenheit to Centigrade, but I must confess that 16° Centigrade has no meaning to me, and I doubt whether it ever will; so, translating it, 16° Centigrade is 60·8° Fahrenheit, and that will be the minimum permitted temperature after the first hour of work in any room where persons are employed for more than short periods and where the work does not involve severe physical effort. There are certain exceptions to this provision, including shops where a temperature of 16° Centigrade (or 60·8° Fahrenheit) would cause goods to deteriorate, but in those cases the staff must have effective means of warming themselves.
There has been a good deal of discussion about the temperature standard to adopt, and some people have suggested that something nearer 65° Fahrenheit would be more suitable, as being closer to what most office workers apparently prefer. I think that the temperature of your Lordships' House is usually 68° Fahrenheit, and some of us perhaps think that that is a little too warm. I would only point out at this stage that the standard laid down in the Bill is a statutory minimum, and that failure to comply with it will be an offence punishable by a fine. It is important to distinguish this minimum requirement from what might be considered an optimum or ideal temperature. Another point to be borne in mind is that a minimum temperature of 60·8° Fahrenheit in the coldest room of an employer's premises will, because of the way heating systems tend to work, raise the temperature in other rooms to higher levels.
The two provisions I have just mentioned, dealing with overcrowding and
948
temperature, lay down specific standards; but on most other matters the Bill describes only general requirements, leaving it to the Minister to specify standards in regulations. I should like to say a little more about this aspect of the Bill, since it has come under close scrutiny and has attracted some criticism. The Government have tried to strike the right balance between having a Bill which contains no specific requirements at all and a Bill which is overloaded with detailed provisions, many of which might need revision from time to time to conform with technical and social changes. There is obviously a wide variety of circumstances in the many kinds of premises covered by the Bill, and to specify all the appropriate standards would mean a very long Bill indeed. However, the Government have accepted that in certain other matters also it is reasonable and desirable to state the requirements of the Bill in greater detail, and they have made a number of changes as the result of discussions in another place. For example, a new provision in Clause 4 (2) spells out the general requirement relating to cleanliness so as to cover the removal of dirt and refuse, and weekly cleaning of floors and steps by washing or other suitable methods.
The remaining general provisions cover a wide range of matters, including ventilation, lighting, sanitary and washing facilities, drinking water, clothing, accommodation, seats and eating facilities. There is also a clause, Clause 21, which gives the Minister power to make regulations for controlling noise and vibrations. This is a new subject, on which we still have much to learn, but the Government acknowledge the importance of this aspect of health and welfare at work—an aspect to which increasing attention is being given.
My Lords, I now turn to the safety provisions of the Bill, which are largely modelled on the provisions of the Factories Act. Accident rates in most of the premises covered by the Bill are likely to be much lower than in factories, but we should not underestimate the hazards which may result, for example, from the growing use of electrical machinery in offices. Like the Factories Act, the Bill requires dangerous machinery to be fenced. Young persons, that is, those under 18 years of age, are

949
not allowed to work on dangerous machinery—as prescribed by the Minister—without adequate training and supervision, and must not be exposed to danger when cleaning machinery. As in the case of the Factories Act, enforcing authorities have power to apply to a magistrates' court for an order putting down dangerous conditions and practices. Similarly, a court can order premises or a part of them to be closed, or a particular operation to be discontinued, in order to remove a risk of bodily injury or injury to health.
The fire provisions of the Bill are broadly similar to those of the Factories Act, with one important addition. This is the requirement imposed by Clause 28 of the Bill that all premises, especially those not liable to certification under Clause 29, should be provided with such means of escape as may reasonably be required in their particular circumstances. This provision meets the general view that nobody should be required to work in even the smallest premises without adequate means of escape if fire were to break out. A general requirement to this effect is therefore placed upon the occupier or, in certain cases, on the owner.
The fire authorities are empowered to enforce this provision, but it is important that they should concentrate their energies and resources on those premises presenting the greatest risks. This is achieved by placing on them the duty of examining and certifying the means of escape in premises covered by Clause 29. These are defined as premises where over twenty persons are employed on the ground floor or over ten persons on other floors, or premises in or beneath which explosive or highly flammable materials are used or stored. We realise that any number of employed persons taken for the purpose of defining fire risk must necessarily be arbitrary, and that there is a wide difference between individual premises in this respect. For this reason, Clause 29 (9) of the Bill gives the Minister power to vary the scope of the certification requirements by means of regulations. This power can be used to extend certification if experience shows that a particular class of premises not liable to certification carried high risks—for example, places where small numbers work in the premises and large numbers of the public visit them.
950
My Lords, the remaining clauses of the Bill deal mainly with matters of administration and enforcement. In general, the Bill places on the occupier of the premises the responsibility for complying with the provisions, but in a building where there are several occupiers holding premises on lease from an owner the respective responsibilities of owners and occupiers are allocated in Clauses 42 and 43. These are somewhat complex provisions which are largely based on experience of dealing with these problems under the Factories Act. It may happen in some cases that an occupier or owner is prevented by the terms of his lease from meeting some requirement. In that case Clause 71 provides that he can go to a county court who can make an order varying the terms of the lease and also apportion the expenses incurred or vary the rent, as they think fit.
Another provision, which has attracted considerable interest, is that for exemption. Under Clause 45 the Minister is able by order to exempt any class of premises from the requirements of the Bill relating to overcrowding, temperature and sanitary and washing facilities. The enforcing authority, normally the local authority, has broadly similar powers under Clause 46 in relation to individual premises. One case in which this power might be necessary is a little village shop with no piped water, where it would be quite unreasonable to apply, without modification, the general requirement relating to washing facilities. If the enforcing authority refuses an application for exemption, the occupier can appeal to a magistrates' court, and they may make such order as they think fit. Workpeople in the premises concerned must be informed when applications for individual exemptions are made, and they must have an opportunity of making representations to the enforcing authority.
My Lords, I now come to the authorities who are to enforce the Bill—a matter on which there has been some controversy. The Gowers Committee found that there was a large body of opinion in favour of having all inspection and enforcement carried out by the central Government, as under the Factories Act. Nevertheless, they thought that, on balance, it was preferable for local authorities to enforce the legislation which they proposed for shops and offices.

951
Their reasons for recommending this were that the local authorities already had some experience of this kind of work, under shops and public health legislation and that it would be convenient to draw on this experience. The Committee also thought that it was desirable to stimulate local interest in this field. Their recommendation was adopted by the Government, and for most of the provisions of the Bill in the great majority of premises covered the enforcing authority will be the local authority; that is the borough or district council. Fire precautions, however, will be enforced by the fire authority, which is normally the county borough or county council.
There are, on the other hand, some important exceptions. Offices and shops in factories and other places covered by the Factories Act will be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate. This is clearly sensible and, for the same reason, offices and shops in mines and quarries will be inspected by the mine and quarry inspectors appointed by the Ministry of Power. The Factory Inspectorate will also enforce the Bill in certain other premises, including premises occupied by local authorities and also railway premises. I should explain that the Factory Inspectorate already have an entry into some railway premises in that they inspect workshops and running sheds under the Factories Act. The Government's approach on enforcement has been the practical one of seeking to use the existing experience of the various enforcing authorities to the best advantage. But the Government are conscious of the need for securing common standards of enforcement, and provision is made in Clause 57 to give my right honourable friend the powers and staff to achieve this.
My right honourable friend is concerned that there should be reasonably uniform and equitable standards of enforcement throughout the country, and he will hope to secure this objective through good will and co-operation between the local authorities and the small central inspectorate which he proposes to establish. I should like to mention the position of the Crown in relation to the Bill. Although the Crown cannot, of course, incur any criminal liability under the Bill, the standards
952
Laid down will be observed in Crown premises and factory inspectors will inspect these premises. Premises owned or occupied by the Crown are specifically covered by Clause 81 in so far as the Crown will have a civil liability in respect of most of the requirements imposed.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to Clause 89, which gives the Minister power to appoint a day for the Bill to come into operation, and also to bring different provisions into operation at different times. It is the Government's intention to begin putting the Bill into operation about a year after it reaches the Statute Book; that is to say, about the middle of 1964. It would not be practicable to advance this date because of the necessity to recruit and train the staff who will be required and to consult with the enforcing authorities on the arrangements for registering premises and administering the Bill.
I have tried in a comparatively short time to inform you of the main features of the Bill. I believe that it is a good Bill and that it will be generally welcomed in the country by all who have to deal with offices, shops and railways. I do not think the great majority of the premises to which the Bill applies will have much difficulty in meeting its requirements; indeed, the standards provided by progressive employers are often in advance of the legal minima proposed. But there are still a number of places where working conditions are much worse than they should be. There is no reason why we should tolerate such conditions to-day and I believe that the Bill, by raising and safeguarding standards, will prove a benefit not only to the persons it aims to protect but also to the economy and so to the nation as a whole.
It is a notable addition to the long record of social legislation for which this Government have been responsible, and as such I unreservedly recommend it to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for performing the unfamiliar task of moving the Second

953
Reading of this Bill this afternoon. If I may say so, I think his speech was a better one than he made last week. Perhaps on this occasion he was able to speak with a great deal more conviction. For me it is a rather happy occasion to support this Bill, for my father started his political career in a shoe shop; he spent his early days there, where he read political papers, and he saw the growth of improvement in standards in shops in his early days.
This is a very big and complex Bill. If it is brought into force it will have a significant social effect. Eight million workers are covered by this Bill. A good many of them are what are called "white collar" workers, many of whom would consider that to be a member of a union was rather beneath their dignity. But I am sure the Government would recognise the part that has been played by the unions, not only in raising condition of work in the factories, but also in the strenuous efforts to bring about improvements in offices and shops. I hope that those who will gain by the passing of this Bill will recognise the part that (has been played by the trade unions.
The Minister paid a compliment to the Gowers Committee. In 1952 we had a debate in your Lordships' House on a Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Crook. On that occasion we had the familiar words of the Government, that the matter was under active consideration. That was 1952. The Gowers Report was published in March, 1949, and we are now in March, 1963. It is true that certain workers who were dealt with in this Report have had legislation brought forward to govern their conditions of work. But the people employed in shops and offices represent a considerable number who were not protected by the Factories Act and other Acts. In some respects, one could say that this is a death-bed repentance by the Government, because ever since the Gowers Report they have strenuously opposed any form of legislation dealing with shops and offices. I shall come back to that point later.
While this may be a new expression of good will by Her Majesty's Government, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will agree that there is a considerable difference beween the Bill in your Lordships' House this afternoon
954
and the Bill that was presented in the Commons many months ago. That Bill had all the indications of having been hastily drafted and presented. In fact, it was due to efforts by the Opposition that the Government brought forward eleven new clauses and twenty substantive Amendments. The Bill now provides that its scope should be extended to include coal depôts, which the Government strongly resisted on Second Reading in another place. We welcome also their agreement to the central inspectorate. They have decided, too, that there should be adequate fire escapes, a matter which was excluded from the original Bill. And, above all else, we were very pleased to see that the Government agreed that when exemptions were being considered by the Minister persons employed in interested unions should be consulted.
I said earlier that this is a very technical Bill. I think we may be able to face the fact that the task of improving the standards in shops and offices will be formidable. There are over 1 million premises. As I have said, the Government have wasted many opportunities for dealing with this subject. I mentioned the Government's attitude in your Lordships' House in 1952—that the matter was under active consideration. In 1955 the Commons gave a pledge that they would bring legislation forward. It was in 1957 that the then Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, tried to get out of this firm pledge. A Labour Member, Mr. Marsh, brought forward his own Private Bill to which your Lordships gave approval. That Bill was a clean and simple Bill. It was accepted by your Lordships' House and by the Government and, as I understand it, the Government gave a solemn undertaking that they would implement that Bill by Regulation. That Bill was passed in 1960, but they took no action whatsoever. In some respects I cannot help but feel that the Government treated Parliament with contempt. Here was a clear expression by both Houses of Parliament that action should be taken, and it is not until three years later that the Government bring forward their Bill; and, as they now tell us, it will be yet another year before any of its provisions are implemented.
The main problem of this Bill, as I see it, will be enforcement. We have

955
1 million premises, the majority of them very small. The responsibility is going to lie very much upon the local authorities, and I wonder whether they will be able to produce the Inspectorate required for them to perform their part of this Bill. It is recognised that many of our local authorities are undermanned and that they have a difficult task in carrying out their present requirements, and here we are going to lay upon them a formidable task. I wonder whether the Government would not be wiser to have a system such as they have under the Factories Act, where they have their own inspectors, to implement the provisions of this Bill.
There are two other problems, as I see it. While there may be a considerable willingness by occupiers of offices and shops to bring their premises up to the required condition, it is going to be a considerable time before these improvements can be brought into effect. The building trade is at present very much strained, and in certain localities, such as the one in which I have my office in Croydon, I can well see that the resources of the building industry will be quite insufficient to carry out some of the major requirements that are called for in this Bill, particularly in the case of fire escapes. Moreover, the capital cost that may be involved on some of the smaller companies, will be considerable. I do not wish to see these people go out of business, but certainly I should wish their premises to be brought up to date. I wonder whether the Government have yet considered what capital means will be available to these smaller businesses to enable them to bring their premises up to requirements.
As I said earlier, we welcome the central Inspectorate. I would ask the Minister to tell us, when he replies, whether it is the intention of the Government that these inspectors should issue a report to Parliament. The noble Lord will see in the Factories Act that the inspectors appointed by the Government send forward their own report, which is printed and put before Parliament. As I see it, there is no such provision in this Bill. It is true that the Minister himself will be making a report, but I should think that in this instance there is a considerable case for the inspectors to send their reports forward so that Parliament may
956
read them and assess what is going on in the country and what improvements are being made.
Having expressed my view on some of the difficulties that may arise in the carrying out of these provisions, I must say that I have considerable regret that the Government have restricted the orbit of this Bill to shops, offices and railway premises. I believe that after the passing of this Bill 20 per cent. of our working population will still be excluded from any form of provision. I consider we should now have taken the opportunity of embracing all the workers in the country. I should not have thought it would be difficult to do so within the Bill, and I am going to suggest on Committee stage that since the Bill is basically an enabling Bill we should, in Clause 1, provide that the Minister, if he so wishes, may include other classes of workers and of premises within the scope of this Bill.
I do not propose to follow my friends in another place and stipulate the type of industry or the type of commerce that should be included, but I should like the Minister to have some flexibility, so that if, for instance, he felt that the refuse or sewerage workers required the provision of sanitary arrangements or washing facilities (and I should have thought that the House would expect that these are the types of employment that well deserve bathing facilities) he would be able to make the necessary Order. I hope that an Amendment to that effect will receive the support of the House on the Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, tried to give us some assurances in regard to the Minister's powers of exemption. I am sure he will agree that, as they appear in the Bill as it stands, they are very wide and sweeping. It is true that he will consult the trade unions or, as the Bill says, "the workers concerned". But the House will recognise that workers in shops and offices are certainly the least organised of the workers of this country, and that their unions are not very strong. I can see that these workers in offices are going to be rather hard pressed if they find themselves in any conflict with their employers. I hope, if there is a question of exemptions, that a very considerable onus will be placed upon the employer or the occupier of the premises before any exemptions are granted.

957
There is one difference that I notice between the Factories Act and the present Bill. In the Factories Act the factory inspector is authorised to prosecute, to defend or conduct any inquiry. This power does not appear in the present Bill. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, between now and the Committee stage, taking into account the position of these badly organised workers and the problem of enforcing these provisions, if he will consider whether it would not make the Bill a good deal stronger and the provisions a good deal more effective if the office or shop inspector appointed under this Bill were in a position to act on behalf of the employees if he felt that there was a case. I personally should like to see such a provision.
The noble Lord also spoke about Clause 2, which is mainly to exempt from the provisions of this Bill what might be called the small office and the small trader. I fully appreciate the difficult position of most shops and traders. They have little capital and their turnover is relatively small; and I can well see that if they had to comply with all these provisions of the Bill they might well be put out of business; and that, of course, I should not wish to see. Nevertheless, I cannot understand the Minister's agreeing to exempt from these provisions the son, the daughter, the grandchild, the brother or the sister of the person by whom they are employed, for instance, in regard to such matters as Clause 17, which deals with the safety of machinery. I should have thought that the Bill should contain special provisions to protect, perhaps, the daughter or the granddaughter, who may be quite juvenile, from the use of machinery. This matter is also dealt with in Clauses 18 and 19. I should have thought that in the case of Clauses 28 and 29, which relate to fire precautions, these small shops should not be excluded. I hope the noble Lord will very carefully consider this aspect. On this question of safety, I do not see why the daughter or granddaughter, who may be only 15, 16 or 17 years old, should be permitted the use of dangerous machinery, such as being allowed to clean a bacon-cutter, when a girl of a similar age in a company, which owned by an outside family, would not be permitted to do
958
so. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord if he will consider this matter very carefully.
With regard to Clause 5, which deals with overcrowding, I will not now deploy the arguments that we shall make on the footage, but I want to draw the Minister's attention to some of the problems that are arising in regard to new buildings. These may provide very nice accommodation for workers, but I am sure the the noble Lord will recognise that their rents and rates are very high indeed. In fact I would say we are forcing many of the companies who have gone into these premises to overcrowd. In the building in which I have an office one floor has gross overcrowding, and this is largely due to the high rents now being charged. There is this period of grace; in other words, it will not be for four years, as I see it, that the special standards will be required. But in the meantime new offices will be going up, old offices will be converted. I wonder whether the Minister would consider whether we could not start bringing this special limitation into effect either as offices are converted or as new offices come into being.
LORD CARRINGTON: As new offices come into use the new standards apply.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am glad the noble Lord has said it. I have read this clause carefully. Perhaps he will show me afterwards where that is laid down. It is a very technical Bill. If the noble Lord's point is correct, I am very pleased to hear it.
In regard to temperature, I personally should hate to work sitting at an office desk in a temperature of 60°. I was surprised when the noble Lord said that your Lordships' House, at 69°, was a trifle warm. I think it is really a question of ventilation and not heat. In any event, it is a question of opinion. I can tell him that the unions who have had close consultation with many workers are firmly of the opinion that a temperature of 65° should be considered the minimum. One thing that interests me is that no maximum temperature is stated. Considering the locality of some offices, I should have thought—I would not overstress this matter—that as some are very close to furnaces and the like,

959
high temperature can be just as intolerable as cold temperature. I wonder whether the Government would consider having a maximum temperature inserted in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, drew our attention to the special provisions that in a shop, particularly where this minimum temperature could not be provided, a room should be provided to which workers might go in order to warm themselves. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there is no provision in this clause that the employer shall see that there is reasonable time in which the worker may go and utilise these provisions. I would draw his attention to page 10, where the Bill deals with sitting facilities, in Clause 13 (3). Here we are making it law that
"the employer of persons for whose use facilities are provided"
in the foregoing provisions, should
"permit them to use them whenever the use thereof does not interfere with their work."
I would suggest that Clause 6 is not sufficient unless it is made obligatory on an employer to see that his workers can use this room in order to warm themselves.
Clause 8 deals with the question of lighting. I would not wish to deploy the arguments we may have on Committee stage on standards of lighting, but I would ask the Minister whether this clause and the regulations will provide that there is adequate lighting in passages and on stairways. I am sure Members of the House will have had many experiences of walking down some of the corridors and passages which are very badly lit. I am sure that considerable improvement could be made there.
Regarding Clause 7, on ventilation, I was indeed surprised that in another place the Government resisted all efforts of the Opposition to bring in the words "free from dust and fumes". This term in fact exists in Clause 63 of the Factories Act. I should have thought that if we provide that workers in a factory have air as free as practicable from dust and fumes such provisions should be in a Bill dealing with offices, many of which may be close to some of our big factories. Again to come back to ventilation, I wonder whether the Government would consider one aspect which causes me concern in regard to some of these modern buildings. We have very large
960
windows in my own office. They are over 4 feet 6 inches square and open out completely so that there is no guard whatsoever; and our window sills are 2 feet 6 inches high, which is not very high. We are putting up office buildings which are 6, 8, 10 or 12 storeys high. I appreciate it does not make much difference whether you fall out of an eight-storey or a twelve-storey building; the result is the same. But I personally do not believe that the requirements for this type of building are sufficiently strong, when one sees many youngsters fooling around in their offices and there is considerable danger. I wonder whether the Government would consider providing in some part of this Bill that these office windows are so constructed that they have an adequate safety margin.
My last point is on Clause 14, which is on seating. Having, as a youngster, visited one of the big chocolate factories in Birmingham, this is one thing I have always been interested in. I always remember being shown the considerable difference in output and efficiency effected by the provision of proper seats at a proper height for the worker and his job. Clause 14 merely provides that seating facilities should be provided. Here again I come back to the Factories Act, page 39, where in dealing with seating, after "him" are the words "for his work"; in other words, the employer must provide seating accommodation suitable for the employee and his work. I am quite sure that a lot of the troubles staff suffer from are due to chairs which are badly designed, of the wrong height, and the like. I should like to see the Minister given power in this Bill to ensure that seating accommodation is provided which is suitable for the person's employment.
There is a great deal more that can be said, and no doubt will be said, on the Committee stage. For our part, we hope for, and look forward to, a brief but very constructive Committee stage. We believe there are a number of improvements that could be made, and if the Government show the same willingness as they have in the other place I am quite sure that this Bill, which is already a better Bill than it was when it started out, will be infinitely better than it is now when it leaves your Lordships' House.
3.30 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Milvarton, for allowing me to intervene in the order of speaking without giving, owing to a mistake on my part, previous notice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that it is most unusual to see the First Lord of the Admiralty offering a social welfare broadside instead of his usual defensive action in other spheres. But we are extremely grateful to him for having done it in such a worthy way and so well.
When a welcome guest is extremely late in arriving, it is sometimes necessary to control one's sense of proportion in not allowing a passing impatience to impinge upon a really basic satisfaction; and An the case of this Bill, which is, I hope, non-controversial and which I consider it would be anti-social to oppose, my chief criticism (one with which I think the: noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will agree) is perhaps not a fruitful one: why this Bill has taken so long to come before Parliament in anything like its present comprehensive form. I therefore offer to Her Majesty's Government my rather negative congratulations for having neither totally suppressed it, nor emaciated it beyond recognition as a rather good measure. Lord Shepherd, I think, said that the Government had come to repentance on their deathbed. I would substitute the words "childbed" for "deathbed" and hope that their repentance may continue.
Under the Public Health Act, 1936, there were no powers to enforce good, or even adequate, standards of decency and amenity for those whom this Bill is designed to help; for that Act was aimed, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, at the protection of the public in general and was, so to speak, a cordon sanitaire to protect those outside the area of potential offence. It did little or nothing for those inside the danger area, as this Bill, of course, seeks to do.
We are all to-day much concerned, and I believe properly concerned, about the slow progress that is being made, for one reason or another, in the field of the demolition of slum dwellings, most of which should have been razed to the ground, 10, 20, 50 or 100 years ago, as Charles Dickens revealed to our
962
own grandparents and great-grandparents. But the slums which exist in the office accommodation in London, in the provincial cities, in smaller towns and in many villages are, I think for the first time, being exposed and, I hope, dealt with by this Bill which itself, I cannot help feeling, is something of a reflection upon the conscience of a nation that has allowed employers to evade with little sense of real guilt, the responsibilities of decency, of comfort, and even of humanity, by too often providing only the minimum, or less than the minimum, of amenity for office workers. At the same time, I have great sympathy with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, brought forward, about the small employer who finds it difficult to bring his premises up to the required standard under this Bill; and I hope that such an employer will be given some concrete assistance. Of course modern concepts of office building take well into account the necessity for good accommodation, and one must pay tribute to those responsible for not so modern accommodation who have made a good job of bringing up the various amenities to a proper standard. This measure will, I hope, succeed in putting out of bounds those who can be moved towards reasonable standards only by the threat and the power of enforcement.
If I may recapitulate one or two points of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd (I will not keep your Lordships long), it is, as he said, seventeen years since the Gowers Committee for examination into this field was appointed, and it is fourteen years since they reported, approximately along the lines of to-day's Bill; or, at any rate, in such a form that a Bill could have emanated from their Report. The delays and excuses since then do not, I am afraid, make a pretty picture. In 1952, three years after the Report was issued, the Government said they proposed shortly to start consultations. In 1953, they said that legislation would not long be delayed. In 1955, a Private Member's Bill in another place sought to expedite the matter, but the Government would not, or could not, find time for it. In 1956 and 1957, as your Lordships will remember, the Government refused to proceed in another place with the Shops Bill to which your Lordships had given much thought and great attention. That Bill,

963
I think, ought to have been further adapted to cover much of the content of to-day's measure.
In 1958, a further Private Member's Bill was introduced, but the Government then considered that the whole matter should more properly await Government action rather than action by a Private Member's Bill. In 1959, yet another Private Member's Bill, this time of a permissive nature was introduced, as Lord Shepherd has told us, but it had an extremely tepid reception by the Government. This was a Bill initiated by the honourable Member, Mr. Marsh, and I believe that in the end no action was taken at all.
Even when action is taken it seems somehow to hang fire. An example that I should like to give your Lordships is that of an inspection of offices in Liverpool, which was made in 1957 under such powers as the Public Health regulations made posible. But on a check-up, two years later, it was found that only 176 out of 269 premises previously inspected had installed any wash-basins whatsoever, and that 109 of these had no hot water. Furthermore, of these, only 38 per cent. had any drinking water in the office premises. I am sure that there are many other instances of this unpleasant state of affairs, and I do not want to drag them in to-day. But in a country where injury and undue discomfort are not allowed to be imposed on children, because they are powerless to act against it, it seems reprehensible that office workers, whose protests might well involve dismissal, should not have some sort of similar protection.
Two of the improvements which this Bill seeks to bring about, as the noble Lord said, refer to cubic space and to room temperature; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, told us that these provisions involve something like one million premises and about 8 million people. The minimum space for each member of the staff, we are told, is to be 40 square feet; but when allowance is made in 40 square feet for a desk, chair, filing cabinet and some sort of passageway, which I believe will be taken in, surely the area is likely to be much less. I hope that this point may be taken up in the Committee stage. We have also touched to-day on the question of tem-
964
perature, which is to be a minimum of 60° Fahrenheit, although as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, we ought to try to remember what the Centigrade figures are. But I think it is odd (and again the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned this, I believe) that the Institute of Directors has recommended a temperature of 65 to 70 degrees. This is another point which might profitably be taken up in Committee by way of Amendment. Then can the noble Lord explain why the Civil Service and the Armed Forces are to be excluded from the benefits of this Bill? I have no doubt that he will have some quite convincing answer, but I do not quite see why that should be so.
I have been rather critical of items which, apart from the long delay, can be rectified in Parliament. But I support the Bill for its aims, and I put only one further question: why is it necessary that the Bill should not be implemented more quickly? I am under the impression that when it was before another place it was said that there would be a gap of five years before it comes into operation, though I think we are now told that it may be operative in twelve months. The noble Lord said that it would be difficult to bring it into operation before twelve months. Am I right?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, twelve months, and then three years after the twelve months.
LORD REA: My Lords, even that seems to me rather a long time for such an urgent Bill, and I hope that it may be possible to take steps to shorten that period. Finally, I would make some secondary criticism of some of the terminology, if I am not trespassing into the preserves of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. Clause 40 exempts, or did exempt (I am not sure if it still does), depôts where coal is stored "in the open". I had thought that the word "open" was either an adjective or a verb. In the open what? Does the Bill only apply to places "in the shut"? What is a "shut"? Would not the noble Lord tell us what a "shut" is?
And is this Bill not a suitable place in which to get rid of the haunting ghost of Mrs. Grundy, who long ago should have been laid to rest in her Victorian grave? Is this not a wonderful opportunity for calling a privy a privy, or

965
if necessary, a water closet, and for abandoning ridiculous and unnecessary euphemisms? A "sanitary convenience", as referred to in this Bill, presumably does not mean either a handkerchief or the driver of a dustcart. So why should not this Bill be more specific and less ambiguous?
As we are on this subject, lest worse should befall, may I protest now against the word "lavatory", except as a place in which to wash, which is what the word means; against the word "toilet", which means beautifying the hair or the raiment, and anyhow is not an English noun; and, above all, against the word "powder room", which seems to indicate in Transatlantic ladies a touching and remarkable belief in the relieving powers of pulverised talcum. I hope that when we come to these general matters in Committee, we may be able to make it perhaps a legal offence, not only for the user, but also for the responsible owner of a so-called "sanitary convenience", to allow any deterioration in its condition of acceptable cleanliness.
I support this Bill, but I should like to mention the clauses which struck me—first of all, those dealing with cleanliness, overcrowding and temperature; and Clause 23, prohibiting the lifting of excessive weights, which is something new and wholly admirable in a Bill of this sort. I was also struck with Clause 46, under which the employed person can resist an attempt to exclude certain premises from the benefits of the Bill; also Clause 77, requiring the Minister to report to Parliament annually, which is a very healthy thing. I make these criticisms quite seriously, though I have perhaps put them in a slightly flippant way, and I should like to say that I do support the Second Reading of the Bill, which I hope it will be given by your Lordships' House.
3.45 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to give a general welcome to this Bill I want to make a very brief intervention dealing with the exercise of authority under the Bill. In this matter I take a rather different point of view or a different angle of vision from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I believe in the decentralisation of the exercise of authority—to push it down as low as possible or as low as it can
966
efficiently be exercised. I am always alert to try to criticise excessive centralisation of authority.
Dealing first of all with Clause 57, the central Inspectorate, this would enable the Minister to set up a small Central Government Inspectorate to co-ordinate the work of the local enforcing authorities. The Minister, I understand, has taken this decision as a result of arguments which were advanced in Parliament and also private representations; and he has the backing of the recommendations of the Gowers Committee on which this Bill is based. I understand that the aim is to develop a close working partnership between the Central Government and the local authorities in enforcing this Bill. It is envisaged that the Inspectorate would work, in the main, by informal consultation and advice.
The Association of Municipal Corporations, whom I have consulted in this matter, is opposed to this clause, because it believes that the local authorities are responsible bodies who can be trusted to carry out their duties without detailed oversight from Whitehall. A degree of uniformity and co-operation can surely be achieved, as the Parliamentary Secretary said during the debate in Committee stage in another place, through discussion with the local authority associations, by the issue of circulars to authorities, and through informal contacts between factory inspectors and authorities. Moreover, under the Bill if the Minister were dissatisfied with the performance of an authority, he could look into the complaint by calling for a report. The Bill opens up a new field of legislation, and there is no reason to suppose, so far as I can see, that a central Inspectorate would be any better informed as to the best means of enforcing it than the inspectors of local authorities themselves.
To turn to the enforcement of the Bill, in Clause 52 local authorities—that is non-county boroughs and other district councils as well as county borough councils—are to be responsible, except as regards fire precautions, for enforcement of the Bill with regard to most of the premises covered by it. But by subsections (3) and (4) it is proposed that for certain premises, including offices occupied by local authorities themselves, the provisions shall be enforced instead by

967
the Ministry of Labour factory inspectors. It is difficult to believe that, because there may be some doubts as to the efficiency of inspection of their own premises by the very smallest local councils, these doubts should be allowed to determine the decision as to enforcement in relation to local authority premises as a whole.
Under existing legislation local authorities inspect their premises for certain purposes—for example, their catering establishments and public slaughterhouses under the Food and Drugs Act, and also under petroleum licensing legislation. The standard of inspection adopted by them is invariably rigorous as the authority is anxious to set up a high standard, and the suggestion that the local authority premises should be subject to external inspection derogates, I suggest, from the status of local authorities as responsible bodies, which has long been recognised by successive Governments and is expressed in the Report of the Local Government Manpower Committee.
In the Bill it is proposed that Government offices should be inspected by Government inspectors. Surely equal confidence should be placed in local authorities. In another place in Committee an Amendment was put down which would have had the effect, if it had been carried, of transferring the responsibility for inspection of local authority premises to the local authorities themselves. It received support from both sides of the Committee, indeed no objection was advanced to it; but, in reply to the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour drew a distinction between the provisions of the Bill and those in other legislation where local authorities inspected their own premises. The provisions in the Bill were for the protection of employees. This was the case in none of the provisions in existing legislation. This distinction does not seem to me to affect the general argument.
He went on to say, however, in another place, that he would be prepared to consider, without commitment, the possibility of putting down an Amendment at a later stage which would allow authorities to inspect their own offices. On this understanding the Amendment was withdrawn. In the end, however, I under-
968
stand that the Minister reached the conclusion that he ought not to disturb the existing clauses of the Bill. The reason for this is that he sees no alternative between, on the one hand, re moving local authority premises altogether from the scope of the Bill, or, on the other hand, providing formally for enforcement of the Bill by an authority against themselves, which I understand the Minister is advised is not a procedure which can be provided for in law.
My Lords, in the interests of local authority employees the Minister is not prepared to remove local authorities' premises altogether from the scope of the Bill, and may I say that no such suggestion has ever been made or contemplated by the municipal authorities themselves. As I have explained, he does not consider the alternative of self inspection a possible one. It is hard to accept that what are in effect difficulties in drafting should stand in the way of an amendment to the Bill which ought in principle to be made. I therefore have raised the question of this principle on the Second Reading, and perhaps it will be possible to deal further with it in the Committee stage.
3.52 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to support my noble and gallant friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. Personally I feel there is nothing very strange about the First Lord of the Admiralty's moving the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, for, traditionally, First Lords of the Admiralty are quite interested in offices. Sir Joseph Porter, indeed, started his career by polishing up the handle of the big front door.
My Lords, I think this is a good Bill, a necessary Bill, and it is in fact the counterpart of the Factories Acts to cover the so-called collar-and-tie workers. I used to be very familiar with the Factories Acts, and I have been through this Bill as carefully as I could and have found many similarities. I think the Bill is necessary because, by and large, although conditions for office workers have greatly improved over the last 20 or 25 years, there is still some room for improvement. The worst example I have seen since the war was the parcels office

969
at one main-line station. That was some years ago now, when I went to pick up a parcel, and I only hope that it has been improved since those days and that, if not, this Bill will have the necessary effect.
When I started in business some forty years ago office conditions were in general far from good. I had to work in some pretty "crumby" ones—if your Lordships will excuse the word. But so far as artificial lighting and cleanliness were concerned, I think my war-time office at the Admiralty really hit the all-time low. About a year ago I met one of my war-time colleagues in that office, and he told me that it was unchanged since the days we shared it together. I cannot believe this, but if my noble and gallant friend cares to inspect it tomorrow I can tell him the number—I shall never forget it—88 OB II.
This slight digression brings me to the point that I particularly welcome. If I understood the noble Lord who moved the Motion aright, Clause 81 ensures that Government offices and local government offices come within the scope of the Bill. This is very important, because we all know examples of such offices which are really not as they should be. Parts of the Bill, in particular Clause 7, which refers to effective and suitable provision of ventilation, might with profit apply to your Lordships' Chamber. Many years ago I worked for eight years for a firm of air conditioning and ventilating engineers, and the knowledge I then acquired has been applied in subsequent years in the factories for which I was responsible. As I struggle to keep awake on these Benches, and as my throat gets drier and drier, I often wish your Lordships could do your work in the same pleasant temperature and humidity as exists in the making and packing rooms in our factories. Seriously, my Lords, something should be done about the ventilation of this Chamber. My father frequently complained about how intolerable he found the conditions. Recently in your Lordships' Library I found evidence that my grandfather never spoke at all in the Chamber, because he found it so conducive to slumber.
Leaving your Lordships' House, I would say that ventilation is most important in many offices, even those with
970
windows. In our cities the noise of traffic is such that one is compelled to keep one's window shut. Although in this House last week the noble and gallant Field Marshal described our climate as "pestilential", nevertheless we who live here all the year round know that we sometimes get quite a lot of sun, and if the windows are not shaded from the direct rays of the sun, particularly when it is low, the conditions become absolutely intolerable. Clause 8 (3) deals with this, but I am not much in love with whitewash for the purpose. The trouble with whitewash on skylights and windows is that, when the day is dull, you cannot remove it just for a few hours, and when the winter comes people forget to take it off. In our days proper shades should be used.
I must say something about the question of temperature, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and others. I agree with the noble Lord opposite. I should not like to work in a temperature of 16° Centigrade, which my noble friend on the Front Bench has identified for me as 60·8° Fahrenheit. Like him I do not understand Centigrade. I think that 64° to 65° is the absolute minimum temperature that one can work in. But, of course, from my air conditioning experience, I would say that humidity has a great deal to do with comfort, and the combination of temperature and humidity is of very great importance. A maximum temperature can be equally unpleasant and stultifying to work in as a very low temperature. I think that 64° as a minimum is probably the right figure. If you want to put in a maximum temperature, I think 72° is the absolute maximum.
My Lords, if and when this Bill becomes an Act, its successful working will depend very much on the quality, zeal, persistence and tact of the inspectors. I have listened with great interest to what other noble Lords have had to say. I have had a good deal to do with factory inspectors, and on the whole I have found them excellent in every way, doing a difficult, and sometimes very difficult, job very well. However, there is one point which I will illustrate with a small story.
Long ago a factory inspector called on me—he came regularly—and asked me whether I would make some minor improvements to certain machinery guards which we had recently installed. I said,

971
"Certainly", and we went and looked at the machines. Of course I told him we would do this, but then I went on to say, "We have spent £4,000 or £5,000 on these guards, which are of novel and intricate design; yet yesterday I was shown round X factory, where there seem to be no guards at all, even on their old-fashioned belt drives. Instead of bothering me to paint the lily, why do you not go and tell those people to put in some elementary guards?" "Ah", said the inspector, "I know that factory well, but whatever I say, they always tell me they cannot afford it. I prefer to come here, where I know you will do what I suggest". That, my Lords, was very complimentary to our management, no doubt, but I still think that this factory inspector should have concentrated on the very bad spots and not on the comparatively good ones.
To-day I think most factory managements take a pride in ensuring that factory inspectors shall not find any recommendation to make when they call on them. I hope that this Bill will stimulate a similar attitude in respect of offices. In fact, the promise of this Bill has, to my certain knowledge, already stimulated many managements into making improvements in existing offices, and into taking appropriate action in new offices which they are designing. There is no doubt in my mind that the welfare and working conditions of office workers have tended to lag behind those of factory workers. The position is very much better now, and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the provision of better, and even better, working conditions for the factory worker has had a tremendous effect in gradually improving the standard for office workers: because it stands to reason that you cannot have lovely working conditions in factories while the people in the offices adjoining the factories are working in absolutely horrible conditions.
In conclusion, I need only mention Clauses 32 to 37, which deal with fire prevention, fire escapes and relevant matters. No doubt we shall look at these provisions in some detail in Committee, though I have not formed any view that there is much wrong with them. At the moment, I would only say that I regard them as probably the most important clauses in the Bill, and I think they might
972
well have been put more in the forefront of the Bill rather than after drinking water, cleanliness, et cetera. The lack of proper fire prevention and escape arrangements can easily result in a most serious loss of life. Friends of mine in the insurance business tell me—in fact, the figures have been published—that, as regards fires, we have just been through the worst twelve months that we have ever known in this country. Therefore, these clauses are of the greatest importance. My Lords, I support the Second Reading of this excellent Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it a speedy passage into law.
4.4 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I join in the general chorus of welcome given to this Bill, and support the giving to it of a Second Reading. In fact, I must confess that, when I put my name down to speak this afternoon, I had not appreciated that such a good job had been done on this Bill during the Committee stage in another place, and I think one ought to appreciate the magnanimous way in which the Ministers in charge of it during the Committee stage there accepted Amendments in principle or put down Amendments themselves to meet points, and in that way, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said, made the Bill very much better. I will admit that, had I appreciated that so much had been done, I should not have put my name down to speak this afternoon, because, to be quite candid, most of the points that can be made by anyone to-day can be dealt with easily during the Committee stage of this Bill.
However, as this is a Second Reading debate, may I say that this Bill is very long overdue? The shop and office workers have, in the main, been un-organised, lacking trade union support and lacking any co-ordination one with another. Therefore, the conditions they have had to put up with have been appalling—conditions which no manual worker would have put up with and which no factory inspector would have allowed an employer of manual workers to place on them. I am reminded this afternoon that it was the brother of my nobly friend Lord Latham—who is going to wind up on this side of the House this afternoon—the late George Latham, the Member for the then Park

973
Division of Sheffield, who in 1930 introduced a Bill for the regulation of conditions within offices. He was a member of my own trade union. It was that Bill which was largely the basis of the Bill which the Member for Greenwich, Mr. Richard Marsh, got through the House of Commons just a year or two ago. Therefore, my Lords, this Bill today is a good 30 years behind its introduction as a Private Member's Bill in another place.
Although one says that the Bill is long overdue, the fact is that it is now even more essential, because offices are becoming more and more factory-like; they are becoming mechanised. There are calculating machines and computers. These computers are now very expensive machines, and, because of their expense, there are bound to be (and one does not complain) employers who, in order to get any degree of return on the machine, will require as near as they can get to a 24-hour utilisation. Therefore, we have to face over a very wide field of office working in the future, not the normal nine to five, to which the office worker has been used, but a working round the clock, very much the same as the manual worker does on the floor of the workshop. In fact, with the development of clerical, professional and technical mechanisation, the clerical, professional and technical work will tend to increase while the actual physical manual work on the floor of the shop will tend to decrease. That being so, the regulation of conditions within offices ought to be protected by legislation.
I admit straight away that, in the main, the firms who are likely to use these expensive machines are those who will be well ahead of legislation so that their conditions generally will not give the Inspectorate cause to worry. Here I must enter a slight protest because, having been an employee all my life until I entered the other place, I have not the tenderness for this small employer which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, tried to expound from the Liberal Benches. It is rather significant that those Benches are all vacant now, when we are discussing this very important matter from the point of view of the office worker. I take the view, as an employee, that no man has the right to employ another unless he is prepared to provide him with a fair rate of pay and fair working conditions.
974
The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, referred to what is, in my experience, an unusual incident, when a factory inspector was trying to improve good conditions within an ordinary factory, suggesting that he could not do it in a factory less well equipped. My general experience has been that the Ministry of Labour Inspectorate have been so thin on the ground that, because of the vast amount of work they have to do, they have very wisely known where in fact they need not go—that is, to the good employer, who is always twenty years ahead of legislation. They have had to leave them alone and concentrate their time and effort on what we within the trade union movement refer to as the "rat shops". They have had to put their time, thought and energy into these in order to protect employees. Rather than giving time, grace and concessions to the small employers, I think there ought to be a close watch on the small employer, to impress on him the rightful conditions for employees. As I have just said, the best employer is generally always twenty to thirty years ahead of legislation; but the conditions under which many shop and office workers in small organisations are working to-day are thirty years behind legislation. They will remain so unless there is in future strong enforcement of regulations.
When I was a workman I was associated with railways, and I was therefore interested when the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, referred to the disgraceful conditions under which some railway clerical workers had to work in the old days. He referred to a parcels office that he went into. Goods and parcels offices on the old railway companies were dirty, dull, badly-lit and, as my noble friend, Lord Champion, has just said, stinking. The incidence of tuberculosis in those offices was very high and the legacy of unsanitary railway offices that was left to the British Transport Commission was simply shocking. But one ought to pay tribute. The Commission were left with a very bad legacy and were working under conditions in which there was a restriction on the capital available, but, so far, the Commission have been able to make rapid strides in the general conditions under which railway clerical staff are working. There is still much to be done arising from the consultations with the trade unions. The Commission have had to

975
deal with the worst cases first; but there are still some bad cases to deal with. But one ought to pay tribute. In their ten years of existence they have done a magnificent job to alter the shocking conditions under which railway clerical workers work.
I should like to join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in regard to Clause 57. If there was complaint against the Bill prior to the acceptance of Clause 57, it was that here were three Ministries—the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health and the Home Office—without any degree of co-ordination whatever. It is only fair to the employer, the employee and the trade unions who represent the employee that there should be coordination of those Ministries and their rules and regulations and spheres of influence, in order that there should be less confusion. I am not going to take any anti-local government attitude. As I have made clear before in this House, I have spent a life-time in local government. I appreciate the work that local government does. I appreciate the work which the shops inspectors and the weights and measures inspectors have done up till now in their association with local government in their several spheres. But this new field of shop and office regulations is one in which they will need guidance and advice and one in which there ought to be the opportunity of general co-ordination as between the one and the other.
From my general experience of local government employees I know that they have a job to do, and I feel they will welcome the general centralisation, so far as Clause 57 is concerned, in order to get a point of consultation to which they can go and by which they can get definite standards—even Case Law—established. One of the problems within local government has been that, while one area can establish a case before a bench of magistrates, the possibility that varying standards will be quoted against a case because of other local authorities is very great indeed. Therefore I feel that, in the interests of the employer, the employee and those who have to carry out the administration, the local government inspectors and
976
others, Clause 57 is fully justified and ought to be strengthened.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who said that good though this Bill is, it will be made effective or non-effective not by the Act of Parliament or by Clause 57 but by the degree of enforcement which is applied to the Act and the regulations arising from it. We can get that degree of enforcement if the functions of the Home Office, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health are co-ordinated and if general guidance is given to local authorities in the administration of the Act. I welcome the Bill; but in the Committee stage there will be one or two points that we will raise in it.
4.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I intend to confine my remarks on this Bill mainly to the question of offices with which I have some experience. I am at present the President of the Institute of Office Management. While I am very much concerned with providing good conditions for office employees, I am speaking on my own behalf and the views that I give are my own. I am not committing anybody else by what I am saying. I support this Bill. There is nothing in it that a good employer should not be able to provide, although much is left to be laid down by regulations. On that point I shall have some remarks to make later. It is a start, even if specific regulations have not been made. Most good employers are already providing the facilities named in this Bill, and if they are not they should find no difficulty in providing them, because employers who were not so good in the past and who have been providing poor accommodation will be given some time to put it right.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned three years from the date of inauguration of the Bill, but, as I understand it, the three years applies only in regard to the amount of accommodation supplied. Any other part of the Bill can be brought into operation immediately. The only general difficulties I see are on account of the very small offices; and here I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, about the small employer. There is no reason why the small employer

977
should be a bad employer. On the other hand, when one tries to lay down regulations which are to apply to all, it is difficult to allow for large and small and all conditions. In a small solicitor's office, for example, there may be two men and two girls. I believe it is unnecessary and impracticable to provide two separate lavatories for their purposes. But, presumably, such cases as these can be subject to exemption under Clauses 45 or 46. There is also the question of temporary offices at shows and exhibitions, lit seems to me that it is not really intended to apply the conditions laid down in this Bill to temporary offices of that sort; and I suggest that some exemptions might be made.
There may also be some difficulty over the definition of office premises. It is stated to be
"a building or part of a building, being a building or part the sole or principal use of which is as an office or for office purposes;".
But I read that as covering the area in a factory, a workshop or a warehouse, where the foreman has his desk and where there may be a telephone. It may have a partition round it, to enable people to use the telephone and hear properly. It seems to me that this sort of cubby-hole is a perfectly legitimate thing to have in a warehouse or factory and I recommend that consideration should be given to excluding such an area from some of the provisions of this Bill.
Regarding space allocation, I think that the minimum figures of 40 square feet or 400 cubic feet are reasonable and the great majority of offices already comply with these. Many modern offices are, in fact, only 8·6 feet high and, if my arithmetic is not wrong, that means that this Bill is providing 47 square feet for every person. A recent study of sample offices in the City of London showed that 7·5 per cent. of individual offices were overcrowded by these standards and one usually reckons that the City contains a fairly high proportion of offices which require improvement. I think that that is encouraging and indicates that the amount of improvement needed in regard to overcrowding is not so great as perhaps some people may think. Of course, if an office is overcrowded with filing cabinets and equipment there can be overcrowding with 40
978
square feet. On the other hand, I think it is impracticable to expect inspectors to go round measuring the sizes of offices and the sizes of equipment and desks, the areas under desks and so on. I think that this clause in the Bill makes a reasonable compromise.
It cannot be too often emphasised how expensive office space is in large cities. Mention has been made of this fact in this debate, but when considering office space people often think in terms of rent, whereas it is necessary to multiply rent by about three times to get the proper cost of office space. In a recent study of modern and fairly modern buildings in Central London, it was found that of the total cost, rent was £27, rates £26 and cleaning, lighting, heating and maintenance made up the remainder. In Central London and in almost any of our large cities, the cost of office space is something like £3 per square feet per annum. If this is translated into the minimum standard laid down by this Bill, it means that the space for every office worker costs at least £120 per annum. I feel that if the real cost of employing clerical staff in large cities was properly appreciated, companies would make greater efforts to reduce their clerical staffs or employ them elsewhere than in these expensive neighbourhoods.
As regards temperature, I agree that 60·8° Fahrenheit—like others, I am afraid that I do not yet think in Centigrade—is low for a purely sedentary occupation. I do not know the basis of this figure and how it was introduced, but I think it was brought in because in some warehouses and railway premises it might be difficult to provide a temperature higher than that. I do not think it matters, if people are moving around and are not wholly sedentary.
The standard of lighting to be achieved is to be laid down by regulation. It is to be hoped that the Minister will take advice widely before making such regulations. In my opinion, there is a great deal of exaggeration about the quality of lighting that people require to work by. Some electrical associations are now putting it out that they should have 30 lumens per square foot. This figure has gone up steadily over the years. What we want to ensure is that every person should be provided with sufficient light to do his or her work efficiently without detriment to personal comfort or health.

979
The cost of providing lighting increases very steeply with the intensity. There is a large body of opinion that holds that 20 lumens per square foot is quite sufficient for any ordinary office work—I am excluding very fine work, such as that done by draughtsmen. Indeed, in most homes, the standard of illumination provided is nothing like 20 lumens, let alone 30, and I wonder whether we are doing our workers good by provided them with a much higher standard of illumination than they expect and find in their own homes. I think this will require very careful looking at by the Minister before regulations are issued.
Another point about overstrong light is that it accentuates glare, and one of the main troubles about working in offices is the glare from the sources of light and the glare reflected on the paper and on the desks. Glare goes up with intensity and if we are to introduce regulations for giving a higher intensity of light, they should carry with them something which prevents trouble from glare, and I do not believe that the present state of knowledge is such that we can do so. I welcome the subsection in Clause 8 which draws attention to the matter of artificial lighting. All too often, light fittings are allowed to accumulate dust and dirt. There must be a regular programme of cleaning.
On the question of safety, one noble Lord gave the impression that there were not many accidents in offices. I believe that if accidents in offices were recorded in the same way as they are in the factory, there would be some surprising figures. Most of the accidents do not come from machinery; they come from over-slippery floors, from people falling through glass doors, from over-high heels and all sorts of things like that. No doubt there are machines which require attention. For instance, there is the ordinary office guillotine. I was going to call it a hand guillotine—I do not mean a guillotine intended to cut off the hand, but a guillotine intended to cut paper. It is one of the most dangerous instruments I have seen, yet almost every office has one. It is perfectly possible to provide them with efficient guards.
On the other hand, there are many moving parts of machinery in offices which are not dangerous—for instance, carriages of electric typewriters and
980
counting machines, and if these have to be completely guarded, that would interfere seriously with the ability to use them properly. The whole question of dangerous parts of machinery requires careful examination in relation to office work before regulations are issued. Many toxic fluids are used in offices. Duplicating and reproducing machines use a whole variety of liquids, and most people have not the faintest idea of what they contain and the dangers, if any, attached to them. Regulations regarding them can presumably also be issued under this Bill.
I have a great sympathy with what the Bill says about the prevention of damage from noise and vibration. The Bills says:
"The Minister may make special regulations for protecting persons … from risks of bodily injury or injury to health arising from noise or vibrations …."
I should have thought that there were very few occasions in offices when noise would bring about injury to health or bodily injury. That does not mean that we should not cut down noise. Noise is a great problem in the office. If it is noise from outside, it can be dealt with by double windows. If it is noise from inside, coming from machinery, much of the machinery can be enclosed. But what is most troublesome in an office is people talking over-loudly on the telephone, and how we are going to prevent that by legislation I do not know. How you are going to say that somebody else talking loudly on the telephone causes bodily injury or injury to health I do not know. I should have thought that the bodily injury is more likely to occur to the person who talks over-loudly on the telephone.
I would support the noble Lord who mentioned the importance of fire precautions. However, I would suggest that the Minister should give a guide to the appropriate authority on matters affecting fire precautions. I was not clear, reading the Bill (I am not extremely practised at this), whether in fact the Minister could give a guide to the fire authorities in connection with the safety aspects from fire. I am thinking particularly of such matters as width of corridors. As I understand it, the regulations at present applied by various local authorities (I imagine they are the fire authorities) to width of corridors vary very much from

981
one place to another. In most offices 4 feet or 5 feet is quite adequate, but I understand that in some areas 6 feet or 7 feet is at present insisted on. It must be borne in mind that in a modern office building a corridor 7 feet wide may amount to one-fifth of the total usable floor space of the building. Therefore, whoever is making these regulations will need to have drawn to their attention the fact that they can increase considerably the cost of the office space if they insist on over-wide corridors.
There is one further point, regarding penalties, about which I am not clear, in that there is no mention of giving the employer notice to enable him to remedy the fault before prosecution is launched. I am not familiar with the Factories Act, but presumably this is based on similar principles. I would urge that there should be some provision for such notice to be given before a prosecution is launched. To sum up, I welcome the Bill, which will take an important place in the legislation of the country. It will, I believe, be a long time before it is working properly, before the regulations are issued and tested, to ensure that they are adequate. This is inevitable, but if the right advice is taken, I believe that in the long run we shall not suffer.
4.32 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, this Bill is another landmark in the social legislation of the country, but I agree with other noble Lords who have said that it has taken a long time to become anything like a reality. The difficulty with a Bill of this kind is to find a happy medium between unreasonable bureaucracy and something which is completely slapdash. I think that, by and large, this Bill strikes that happy medium.
I should like, first, to say a word about shops, and especially restaurants. Clause 9 refers to the requirements of sanitary arrangements, public conveniences or whatever one may call them. But in many of the smaller restaurants and cafés these seem to be non-existent; and where they do exist often they do not comply with the requirements of Clause 9 (2) of the Bill. This is particularly apparent in seaside resorts, where in the height of the season many families go with their children. They take them into one
982
of these cafés, and not infrequently the child wants to go to the toilet. But there is no toilet there; or, if there is one, it is in a very bad condition. I hope that the requirements of Clause 9 (2) will be tightened up considerably and will be enforced. As the situation is at present, these conditions can, and indeed do, lead to a good deal of unnecessary illness and to viruses manifesting themselves.
Much has been said about Clause 6, relating to temperatures. I suppose that in a sense I have rather blue blood in my veins, because I regard 60° Fahrenheit as an overall minimum requirement as being too warm, even in a sedentary occupation. But if a figure is going to be struck, then 60·8° is as reasonable as any. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who suggested that a maximum temperature should also be inserted into the Bill, and perhaps more can be said about that point in Committee. The trouble with many offices is that if one opens the window in one part of the office some of the people there are in a howling draught, and as a result contract fibrositis or something like that, while others are in a complete state of fug. My own office, which is in the City, is a relatively modern one, but in some parts of it at this time of the year if a window is opened those sitting under it or near it can be in a nasty draught, while in another part of the office, if the window is shut, the heat is almost unbearable.
The problems of Clause 6 are, I think, mainly those of capital expenditure, because if the provisions of the clause are to be brought in, many offices will need completely to overhaul their heating. Many of the modern offices have oil-fired central heating, and others heating which is thermostatically controlled; but there are those which have the old-fashioned, possibly deficient, coke boiler, which is not easy to control to give an even temperature, particularly if the prevailing wind is in the wrong direction. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to building resources, in so far as these improvements are concerned. In this respect, in the provinces particularly, a real problem exists; and since there is now a tendency to move more and more offices out of London into the provinces, I think the Government will have to give serious consideration to the availability of build-

983
ing labour when the requirements of this Bill become necessary.
The matter of noise has been mentioned. Opposite my office, quite recently, some quite necessary demolition work has been taking place to get rid of some old shops. This has meant a great deal of noise, and dust has pervaded the office, causing much discomfort. I think the House would be interested to know from the Minister how these noise regulations are to be enforced, and by whom. Clause 24 refers to first-aid provisions, and in many offices at the moment this leaves much to be desired. In many small offices there is nobody who is fully trained in first-aid and, as my noble friend Lord Courtown said, many of the new appliances in these offices can be very dangerous. They have sharp edges and other devices which can cause nasty cuts. In the case of a serious accident it is not always easy for an ambulance to get through quickly. It was suggested in another place that there should be first-aid courses for one or perhaps more employees of a small firm, and I think this is a matter to which the Government might well give some thought.
As I have said, this Bill has much to commend it. It is a start, with the greatly increased building of new offices, to maintain reasonable standards. But much needs to be done, and I share the disappointment of many people that the Bill does not range further, to cover, for example, theatres. Many young people work in theatres where there are dark passages, with bad lighting and tiny, inadequate offices. Similarly with hospitals: in some of the old hospitals the rooms which the matron and others of the senior staff use are quite inadequate in heating, lighting and from every other point of view. When the Committee stage comes we can improve this Bill, which I certainly think merits a Second Reading.
4.43 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, must be gratified by the reception which this Bill has received from the House this afternoon. Subject to the reservations in regard to the Committee stage, when we hope that Amendments proposed will enable this Bill to leave your Lordships' House even better than it is to-day, we welcome the Bill. I was par-
984
ticularly moved by the reference which my noble friend Lord Lindgren made to the late George Lathan, a life-long friend of mine. On my shoulders fell the mantle which he was proud to wear, that of being Member of Parliament for the Park Division of Sheffield.
Like my noble friend Lord Lindgren, I spent the whole of my industrial working life in the railway service. I well remember, as a member of the same Association as my noble friend Lord Lindgren (an Association organised before the First World War), how our first campaign was aimed at exposing the very high rate of tuberculosis among railway office workers. I can call to mind the office in which I was employed for a number of years, where no fewer than five out of a staff of 20 died from tuberculosis. As a member of No. 1 Sectional Council before nationalisation, I can recall the many weary hours we spent pleading for better railway office accommodation. We welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and my noble friend Lord Lindgren said in regard to some railway offices. I remember one important railway district office in which the clerks were compelled to work, day in and day out, and if they opened the windows they had the delightful effluvia from the stables down below.
A NOBLE LORD: Very nice, too!
LORD BURDEN: It might be nice for some people. It was subsequently replaced with the delightful fumes from motor lorries, which might not be quite so good.
I pass for a moment or two to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in his adverse comments on Clause 57 and the central Inspectorate, linking it up with a condemnation of the growth of central bureaucracy. Arguments of that kind addressed to the problem of a central Inspectorate are quite fallacious. One of the most important and valuable instruments of central Government for building up and maintaining common standards throughout the country in regard to many services, is the central Inspectorate. Would the noble Lord object to the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Education? When one thinks of the work which has been accomplished by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Education, one can only marvel that in the twentieth century people should talk in that way.

985
That was only an introduction to the main theme of the noble Lord's speech—and I am glad to see that he is back in his place. His main theme was the argument for the exclusion of the offices of local authorities. I hope that the Government will not succumb to those blandishments. They did not do so in another place. As with employers generally, there are many good councils, so far as the standard of office accommodation is concerned, and there are others who are not so good. I put it in that non-committal way.
Just think for a moment what the noble Lord's proposal would mean. An officer of a local authority charged with the responsibility for carrying out the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act, reports to his local authority that certain offices of the council do not come up to prescribed standards. It is considered by the committee, and the committee are aware of all the financial stringencies and all the rest of it, which we who have had years in local government know come up. The committee say that they cannot deal with the matter now; that the staff have lived in that office accommodation for so many years that it will not hurt for them to live in it for a few years longer. But the officer, or his assistant, brings it up again. Again he gets the same sort of reaction from the appropriate committee. Are we to imagine that officer taking action against his own local authority for the enforcement of a provision? To state it in that way is to state the absurdity of the position which the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is asking us to adopt.
My Lords, my final word is this. I am authorised by the National and Local Government Officers' Association, a trade union of over 300,000 members, to ask your Lordships not to accept the position as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, because, in effect, it will be contracting out over 300,000 men and women throughout the country employed in offices, some of which are very good and some very bad, leaving them without the effective protection which we hope and believe will be ensured by this Bill to other office workers when it becomes law.
4.52 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill is approaching its close and I am to wind
986
up for my noble friends on this side of the House. Therefore, I should like to express, at the outset, my regrets that I could not be here at the commencement of the consideration of the Bill. I was detained on another public activity. May I express to my noble friends Lord Lindgren and Lord Burden my sincere appreciation of the kindly references they have made to my late brother? As I have said, I am winding up, and I shall seek to be brief, leaving the principal defects and deficiencies in this Bill for consideration and debate in the Committee stage. I also welcome the Bill, having been associated with efforts to secure the purposes of the Bill for many years, but I frankly admit that I do not welcome the Bill as enthusiastically as did my noble friend Lord Lindgren. I think the Bill is not satisfactory.
The purpose of the Bill is, of course, to set up standards of health, welfare and safety for certain, and only for certain, non-industrial workers. It is the case that it is estimated that it will cover some 8 million people, but it will leave out of any of its protective provisions some 5 million people. Whereas industrial workers have long enjoyed this protection, 5 million non-industrial workers are to be denied it—and this after 50 years of agitation and waiting. Not only is the Bill not satisfactory on that account but there are other features to which I shall refer which render the Bill unsatisfactory to achieve a purpose related to and adequate for the industrial and commercial conditions which prevail to-day.
For 50 years nothing has been done except, of course, the appointment by a Labour Government of the Gowers Committee; and I should like, myself, to pay a tribute to that Committee, and to its eminent Chairman, Sir Ernest Gowers, for their Report and for the exhaustive survey that they made of the conditions under which the white collar workers have to work. There was, of course, a Bill in 1911 and in all there have been sixteen Bills. They suffered a high rate of mortality because they always suffocated, except the one of which this Bill is, so to speak, the child.
My Lords, this is a belated Bill: it is fifty years too late, and during those fifty years thousands of people, non-industrial workers, have had their lives stunted and wasted in foul and noisome premises where they were required to

987
work. Successive generations have suffered from this. My noble friend Lord Burden gave instances of his own experience when speaking a little time ago. Tuberculosis and coronary diseases afflicted non-industrial workers in a very high and lamentable degree. This Bill, I submit, is riddled with loopholes, exceptions and exemptions and, moreover, there is a very fertile field for all sorts of anomalies. It is fair to say, and I say it willingly, that the Bill was greatly improved in Committee in another place, but, nevertheless, it remains unsatisfactory, and it really does not match up to the needs of to-day, to the needs of the 1960s. In many important respects it is very much less comprehensive and effective than the recommendations of the Gowers Report: and this in spite of the development of the social conscience during the past fourteen years.
The Tory Party have talked about a workers' charter, and in that charter were certain references to this problem of providing for standards of accommodation for non-industrial workers. But there is nothing of the nature of a charter in this Bill. It is, I submit, a poor product after twelve years of gestation since 1951. As I have said, the Labour Government set up the Gowers Committee and, when its Report was published, the Labour Government accepted its provisions. Unhappily, there was no time to implement them. Tory Governments have since accepted the Report. The Tory Party likewise accepted it in its Election Manifesto in 1955. There have been affirmations of acceptance and approval galore, but nothing was done until 1959, when the Government repudiated their acceptance of the principles of the Gowers Report, threw them out of the window—or, in the presence of the First Lord, should I say threw them overboard? It is a pretty shabby story and it is worth while reciting it briefly. One could, of course, expatiate at great length, but here are the chapter headings.
In 1952, discussions took place between the Government and interested organisations with a view to legislation. Nothing came of it. In 1955 the then Home Secretary said that legislation was in course of preparation. Again nothing eventuated. The same year the Tory Party Election programme promised legislation
988
to protect the conditions of premises occupied by non-industrial workers. In 1957 the then Minister of Labour said that the Government were committed to the spirit of the Gowers Report. And in the same year, 1957, the then Home Secretary stated that
"the ideals which inspired the Gowers Committee remain our own,"—
namely the Government's. After this self-dedication the Government had to be pushed, as it were, to do something; and they did it most reluctantly. They produced this Bill; and it has been produced almost by a fluke.
In December, 1959, a private Member in another place, Mr. Marsh, introduced a Bill to deal with offices and offices alone. He sought to secure established standards for offices, a step which would have affected something like 5 million people. On behalf of the Government of the day the Minister opposed the Bill. The Government threw overboard all high-sounding affirmations and promises. The Minister stated that further inquiry was needed—this was after publication of the Gowers Report. Things had changed, he said, since the Gowers Committee reported. Without producing any evidence, he implied that conditions were better, that circumstances had changed. He went on to say that there ought to be another inquiry before a decision was taken on whether further action was necessary. He invited Members of another place to decide whether any genuine need existed for legislation as proposed by the Gowers Committee. He preferred to rely, he said, upon competition, fair dealing and enlightened self-interest. To their credit, Members of another place voted against the Minister, and a Second Reading was accorded to the Bill.
One wonders whether this repudiation of earlier affirmations and promises explains the failure to implement the further promises made in February, 1960, to produce regulations under the Bill to which I have been referring and which had become the Offices Act. As I have said, this is a pretty shabby story of vacillation and equivocation. Enlightened selfinterest, if you please! Plenty of self-interest, but pretty little enlightenment over 50 years of waiting. What a nostrum to use in the 1960s!

989
So we have this Bill, reluctantly presented and, as I submit, inadequate in scope, in purpose and in provision. The Bill is no charter for the non-industrial workers, for 5 million people are left out of it, people who are concerned with working in theatrical premises, road vehicle depôts and parts of hospitals and dental workshops. Even as amended, I submit, it does not measure up to the needs of the day. The Bill is largely a framework which is to be clothed with regulations all of which are to be made by the Minister. The Times stated that there were 25 sets of regulations contemplated in the Bill, and went on:
"Parliament may well be disposed to welcome this Bill but it may also justly complain that it is not told precisely what it is being invited to welcome, since so much depends on the nature of the regulations made under the Bill, on the use which is made of the powers of exemption and on the discretion of the Minister."
It is a forbidding set of powers that are placed in the hands of a Minister.
The case for this Bill is unanswerable. The case for a better Bill is more unanswerable. It is a great pity that, as I have said, it does not measure up to the needs of to-day. Why could we not have had a thorough-paced, comprehensive Bill embracing all non-industrial workers, a Bill which would clean up the morass of slum offices once and for all? Our ancestors talked of the "dark, satanic mills". Those were long ago brought under regulation. Why should not offices, why should not shops, why should not premises of railways? There are more slum offices than there are slum residences, and there is no real clearance procedure in respect of offices and shops such as there is in respect of houses and dwellings. Thousands of offices and shops are grim, grimy and gruesome. There is no safety provision. Some of them are veritable death traps, pestilential and pestiferous. Surely it is the duty of Parliament, after agitation covering some fifty years, to put an end to this social evil. This measure goes some way, but not far enough—not by any means. In Committee we shall seek to amend and strengthen the Bill, to extend its range of application, of operation and of enforcement. We shall not oppose the Second Reading. We shall do what we can, consistent with improving the Bill, to facilitate its passage through this House, suitably, I trust, amended to meet the needs.
5.10 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I should like to say how glad I am—indeed, I am sure we all are—to see the noble Lord, Lord Latham, back at the Dispatch Box again. It is, I think, the first occasion on which he has been well enough to address the House since the Summer Recess, and it was good to hear him in such excellent form, if I may say so; and my pleasure is such that I will forgive him for saying he could not give the Bill the same support that had been given it this afternoon by his noble friends. He did not give it the same support; in fact he did not give it very much. But there we are.
The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd, Lord Rea and Lord Lindgren, and my noble friend Lord Auckland, complained in varying degrees because the Bill had not been brought forward earlier. The Gowers Committee, to which many of your Lordships have referred, never envisaged that their proposal would be implemented quickly. Factors such as the capacity of the building industry have been relevant. I have often heard the complaint that in recent years there has been too much building work on offices at the expense of housing. It is not reasonable to complain on one day that too much has been done, and on another day that too little has been done.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, he is less than fair. I should have thought that the main criticism about office building has been its concentration of locality. It is not a question of the amount of office building; it is where it has been placed.
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords, I did not mean that, and I think what I said is perfectly true.
LORD REA: My Lords, is not the noble Lord really referring to new office building, and not to improvements in old offices?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, what I am referring to is work by the building industry on offices. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, certainly welcomed the Bill; in fact, I think he said that it is a rather happy occasion for him to support the Bill. But he went on to say

991
that the Bill is probably to be regarded as a death-bed repentance on the part of the Government. I think the House should realise that the Party to which I belong, the Conservative Party, have much to be proud of in their legislative record in this field. I know that particularly the noble Lord, Lord Latham, will remember that all the major Factories Acts, with the exception of the first Act of 1833, have been passed by Tory Administrations, the most important being the Acts of 1844, under Sir Robert Peel; of 1878, under the noble Earl, Lord Beaconsfield; in 1901, under the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and in 1937, under Mr. Baldwin.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we do not mind the noble Lord going back into history, but perhaps he will complete it. It was then the Tory Party legislating against their then opponents, the Liberals, who were the industrialists of that time.
LORD NEWTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. But I will come on now to more modern times. And here I would point out that in the last ten years Conservative Governments have been responsible for the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956, and the Factories Act, 1959. On the other hand, during their terms of office, Labour Administrations have been responsible for only one Factories Act, and that the relatively minor Act of 1948. And so far as the Liberal Party are concerned, the Shops Act, 1912, is the only Liberal measure in this field since 1833.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the Tory Party supported Lord Shaftesbury in the early days of his agitation for regulations for factories?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not think that has much to do with legislation; and in view of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Latham on which I think I have been fairly moderate, I feel that I was justified in saying what I have just said.
I would also remind the House that my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour originally intended to introduce this Bill last Session, but in fact it was crowded out. As regards the Private Member's Act for which Mr. Marsh was
992
responsible, in Standing Committee in another place on that Bill the Minister of State at the Home Office, my right honourable friend Mr. Vosper, said that regulations would be made within six months of the commencement date. The commencement date written into the Bill was January 1, 1962. Long before that date—namely, on July 28, 1960—my right honourable friend Mr. Butler, who was then Home Secretary, announced that the Government intended to introduce their own Bill. As I have just said, the intention was to introduce the Bill early in the 1961–62 Session. But earlier in 1962, last year, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour said in another place that he did not propose to make regulations under Mr. Marsh's Offices Act because he did not see any point in consulting organisations about a number of draft regulations which would shortly be superseded by new regulations under the present Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, are we to take it from that that the Minister has already prepared the regulations for this Bill?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord should make any assumptions from what I have just said, apart from what I have just said. At one moment in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, seemed to be taunting the Government with having accepted so many Amendments in another place.
LORD BURDEN: No, no!
LORD NEWTON: That was rather the impression I got, and I thought to myself that perhaps my noble friend Lord Carrington and I ought to remember that before we reached a further stage of this Bill. But, on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren—I have not forgotten what he said—most charmingly said that he thought the Government had been most magnanimous in another place in accepting so many Amendments. When I heard him say that, I thought that perhaps, after all, if I did not forget what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had said, at any rate I would not remember it as strongly as I might otherwise have done.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, because if this has any bearing on the future

993
I should wish to make it quite clear to the noble Lord that I was not taunting him. I was pointing to the rather ill-prepared Bill that was introduced, and the attitude of the Government in regard to accepting Amendments which would greatly improve it.
LORD NEWTON: Let us leave things like that. We can form only our own impressions of each other's speeches. Several of your Lordships said that so far as this Bill is concerned nearly everything will turn on how it is interpreted. A measure of my right honourable friend's determination that the provisions of the Bill should be effectively enforced is that he has included Clause 57. Naturally, the Government accept that a close working partnership with local authorities in carrying out the duties of enforcement is essential. There will be something like 1,700 enforcing authorities responsible under the Bill, and some means of achieving uniformity in the administration is obviously desirable.
That is why the Government have accepted all along that they have a duty to give advice to local authorities on the problems which they may have to meet. This will be achieved by the issue of circulars and, still more, by informal discussions between the factory inspectors and local authority inspectors; and my right honourable friend has no doubt that if he required information on any question relating to enforcement, the local authority concerned would co-operate fully in providing him with it. On the other hand, strong feelings were expressed in another place that this voluntary partnership might not always succeed, and it is strongly suggested that my right honourable friend should take powers in the Bill to set up a central supervisory inspectorate of the kind recommended by the Gowers Committee and give them the necessary power to do the job.
Clause 57 is the outcome of my right honourable friend's further consideration. It enables him to appoint inspectors for the purposes he has in mind, and gives them powers to make inquiries and examine records kept by enforcing authorities. My right honourable friend will also be able to make regulations about the way in which the duties of enforcement are to be discharged. There is a provision that in
994
cases where the Minister so directs the central officer shall report in writing the result of his inquiry and that a copy of the report shall be sent to the local authority. If he thinks fit, my right honourable friend may publish the report in whole or in part. While these powers should give the Minister all that he needs to ensure that the Bill is enforced in a satisfactory and uniform manner, they will not be used to make routine inspections of local authority arrangements. They will be used only when difficulties cannot otherwise be resolved. My right honourable friend hopes that there will be good will and close co-operation between the central and local authorities, but I should make clear that he has no intention of exercising his powers in a way which would tend to undermine the independence and responsibility of local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked particularly about the publication of reports by the central Inspectorate. The position is that under Clause 77 the Minister is required to lay annually before Parliament a report on the operation of the Act. This report will include a section on the work of the central Inspectorate which is to be appointed under Clause 57. Lord Shepherd also asked about the provision of sufficient staff for enforcement. It will be for the local authorities themselves to arrange for the recruitment of inspectors and other staff to enforce the provisions for which they are responsible. I can speak only for the Government. So far as the Factory Inspectorate are concerned, it is my right honourable friend's intention to recruit a sufficient number of new inspectors to deal with the additional duties imposed by the Bill so that the present work of the Inspectorate in connection with factories will not suffer. He has also stated in another place that new posts will be created for the Inspectorate appointed under Clause 57.
My noble friend Lord Courtown gave us the benefit of his great experience, particularly with reference to regulations for controlling noise and vibration. I should like to say a word about that matter. The relevant clause, Clause 21, enables the Minister to make regulations for the protection of workpeople in premises covered by the Bill against safety and health risks resulting from

995
noise and vibration and also to safeguard their welfare in this respect. The regulations envisaged may make such provisions as appear to the Minister to be reasonably practicable and may impose obligations and restrictions on employers, workpeople and other persons. This clause is particularly noteworthy in that it is the first provision in which an attempt has been made to deal specifically with the problem of noise by legislation of this kind. The problem may well be growing. More machinery is being used in offices and there is an increasing awareness of the effect of noise on the worker's health and welfare and on his safety also in some cases.
The general question of noise control is at present being investigated by a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Wilson. Their report is expected to be published this summer. A programme of research into the effects of industrial noise is also being undertaken. The programme is being financed under the Industrial Injuries Act and is being carried out with the active co-operation of the Ministry of Labour. I have no doubt that these studies will contribute to our understanding of the problems which noise undoubtedly creates to-day. Because knowledge of the subject is still limited, it is not possible to say now what matters are likely to be covered under any regulations on noise control. The clause, however, has been drawn to equip my right honourable friend with wide powers to take effective action where the need for it has been established.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, discussed Clause 5 dealing with overcrowding. I think I ought perhaps to try to make clear exactly what the clause does. The position is that when Clause 5 (1) is brought into force, probably about one year after the Royal Assent, subsection (2), which lays down the formula of 40 square feet per person, will apply immediately to a room which was not occupied as office, shop or railway premises at the date of Royal Assent. For rooms in use as such premises at the date of Royal Assent, there will be a period of grace of three years, starting from the date when subsection (1) of Clause 5 is brought into force—that is, about three years from the summer of
996
1964. I realise that it can be said that the period of grace of three years should be reduced to one year, and that since the period of grace will not commence until the summer of 1964, the periods I am talking about are really four years and two years. Nevertheless, the Government cannot accept that two years is a reasonable and adequate period of grace.
I think it is easy to under-estimate the considerable difficulties which this requirement may cause in some cases. It is only fair to give occupiers a reasonable period in which to make structural alterations or to search for new premises if they cannot satisfy the space standards in their existing premises. I should remind the House that serious overcrowding can be dealt with under Clause 5 (1), which is not subject to the period of delay. I do not think the argument sometimes advanced, that the exemption powers should be used in difficult cases after a short period of grace has expired, is a very good one. A period of grace of two years would lead to greater uncertainty among occupiers as to whether an exemption would be granted, and this might have an adverse reflection in their labour requirements. In any case, my right honourable friend has said on a number of occasions that the power to grant exemptions should be used sparingly, and we do not want inspectors to use their time issuing and reviewing exemption certificates. Again, in this case, therefore, the provisions in Clause 5 strike about the right balance.
Both noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Lindgren, discussed Clause 2, which provides for the exclusion of family businesses. The object of Clause 2 (1) is to free from the requirements of the Bill a business—usually a very small one—where only members of the employer's immediate family are working. This provision applies only to cases where very close relatives of the employer are concerned.
LORD LATHAM: Such as "Steptoe and Son"?
LORD REA: Such as the Table of Affinities?
LORD NEWTON: Without pursuing the matter too far, I would just say the employment of any other relative, for example, a niece or son-in-law, would

997
bring such a business within the scope of the Bill. The reason for this clause is that the Government do not wish to interfere unnecessarily in family affairs. It may be said that an employer's children employed in his business are just as likely to suffer accidents from dangerous machinery as other young persons. The Government's view, however, is against introducing inspectors into these family concerns, and we do not regard it as practicable to apply the Bill piecemeal.
Lord Shepherd particularly had safety in mind, but to inspect for safety only would require all the administrative apparatus of registration and enforcement. We believe that the close family relationship would itself be a sufficient safeguard in these matters, and that a father or mother would be just as anxious to see their children are protected from danger as would an inspector appointed under the Bill.
LORD LINDGREN: This being very much a family Government, I can understand their point of view. But surely we are not going to legislate in order to assist the exploitation of a family. And a father can be just as brutal towards his son—in fact, more brutal sometimes—as he can towards an ordinary employee.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, we are certainly not legislating in this Bill to exploit the employment of members of a family. With great respect to the noble Lord whose speech I much appreciated earlier, I think he is rather exaggerating the dangers he sees in that sort of thing.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, with the greatest respect, in normal life one comes across what is almost slavery among family concerns, where those who are employed within the business ought to be protected against their own family, even by legislation, from bad wages, bad conditions and long hours.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a matter of opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has expressed his, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, expressed his, and there we are. At any rate, my duty this afternoon is to tell your Lordships the view of the Government, and I hope I have done that clearly.
998
Both the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and my noble friend Lord Milverton were concerned about the method of enforcement in local authority premises. Perhaps I ought to say something about that as briefly as I can. I can assure my noble friend that the Government gave very careful consideration to the suggestion that local authorities should be permitted to inspect their own premises. The Government have been advised, however, that they cannot provide that local authorities should enforce the Bill against themselves. The effective choice is between providing that the Bill should be enforced in local authority premises by some outside agent—which means, in practice, the Factory Inspectorate—and making no provision at all for enforcement.
The Government believe that it would be wrong to make no provision for enforcement in the premises, and this view has been reinforced by the opinion of the National and Local Government Officers' Association, the majority of whose members are employed in local offices. My noble friend Lord Milverton pointed out that local authorities enforce the provisions of food and drugs legislation, public health legislation and other Statutes in their own premises, but none of these Acts compares with this Bill in dealing intimately with the conditions provided by the authorities for their own servants. The Government have no doubt that all local authorities will set an example in complying with the Bill, but it seems desirable, in their own interests, that they should have an opportunity of showing that they have done so.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I should explain that the Crown does not, and cannot, incur any criminal liability under the Bill, and there is consequently no provision for enforcement against the Crown. But the civil liability of the Crown is dealt with in Clause 81, as my noble friend Lord Ampthill pointed out, and in practice Crown premises will be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate, in order to fulfil the Government's intention that the standards of the Bill should be observed in their own premises. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and several other noble Lords discussed temperature. I do not think there is much that I can add to what my noble friend Lord Carrington said in his opening speech. I understood my noble friend

999
Lord Auckland to say that 60° Fahrenheit was too high for his personal comfort. Was that right?
LORD AUCKLAND: Yes. It was purely a personal opinion, and it was not supposed to represent the majority opinion at all.
LORD NEWTON: I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord said that, because there are very wide differences of opinion about this matter. I come down on the side of noble Lords who earlier this afternoon signified their agreement with the proposition that the temperature in this Chamber tends to be too high. But everyone is entitled to his own point of view on that.
My noble friend Lord Ampthill welcomed the Bill, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I think I should also thank him on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington for expressing the view that it was quite appropriate that the First Lord of the Admiralty should move the Second Reading of this Bill. My noble friend did not go on to say whether or not it was appropriate for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to wind it up, but as he said nothing about that I hope he has not been too offended. I should explain to him that I personally have no responsibility for the temperature conditions in this Chamber.
I have already referred with appreciation to the general support which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has given to the Bill. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Courtown for his support, because he obviously speaks with great authority about everything that goes on in offices. I was particularly impressed by what he said about light-
1000
ing arrangements. I hope that I have dealt with most of the important points which your Lordships have raised, and certainly everything that your Lordships have said will be taken note of by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that your Lordships will now feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.