§ 2.43 p.m.
§ Order of the Day read for resuming the further proceedings after Third Reading.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further proceeded with.
§ Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
1299§ Clause 42 [Provisions with respect to buildings in single ownership]:
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think that it would be convenient to your Lordships if we discussed together this Amendment and the next Amendment standing in my name, which has exactly the same purpose. Clause 28 requires all premises under the Bill to be provided with adequate means of escape in the event of fire. While the clause is cast in general terms, its primary object is to require the provision of means of escape in premises not subject to the certification procedure in Clause 29. It is expected that there will be premises of this kind in buildings to which Clause 42 or Clause 43 applies—for example, an office situated in a block of flats. The purpose of the Amendments is simply to make it clear that the owners of Clause 42 or Clause 43 buildings are responsible for the provision of means of escape in respect of these premises, in just the same way as they are responsible for providing means of escape from premises subject to the certification procedure. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, after ("applies") insert ("of section 28 of this Act, for a contravention, in relation to such premises,").—(Lord Carrington.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 43 [Provisions with respect to buildings plurally owned]:
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 26, after ("applies") insert ("of section 28 of this Act, for a contravention, in relation to such premises,").—(Lord Carrington.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 52 [Authorities who are to enforce Act]:
§
LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (3), after ("thereunder") to insert:
except sections 28 to 38 and regulations under any of those sections".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment, which deals with the situation with regard to the inspection of, and provision of means of escape from, offices belonging to the local authorities. In regard to such offices it is not clear why factory inspectors
1300
should exercise the powers of the fire authority. There are no grounds for supposing that, because the fire officer concerned with inspecting premises and recommending a certificate of approval would be employed by the local authority occupying the premises, the duty of enforcing the fire provisions would not be properly exercised. It seems to me to be casting a doubt and discredit on the authorities responsible for enforcing the provisions of this Bill.
§ The committee of an authority responsible for certification and enforcement would be the fire brigade committee, and virtually all the offices would be the concern of some other committee. There is an analogy, of course, in town planning legislation, which authorises the local planning authority to give consent to its own development. Because of the working of the committee system the planning committee can often challenge proposals of other committees, and has shown itself well able in the course of time to uphold the principle of independence on which it works. In those circumstances we can see no reason why the supervision of means of escape from offices belonging to local authorities should not be entrusted to the fire authority. Surely that is what they are there for. Why should we by-pass that authority, its knowledge, its experience and its facilities? I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 42, after ("thereunder") insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON)My Lords, I must begin by explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that the effect of this Amendment, incorporated in the Bill in isolation, would be to provide that there would be no enforcement of fire provisions whatsoever in any of the premises mentioned in Clause 52(3). But I take the point that what the noble Lord wants to do is to secure that these premises should be inspected and the provisions enforced by the local authority.
§ LORD LATHAMBy the fire authority.
§ LORD NEWTONYes, by the fire authority, which is part of the local authority. But the noble Lord would have had to move, as I think was his 1301 original intention, to delete subsection (2)(a) of the clause, though that is a drafting point.
What I want to make plain is that fire authorities are normally the counties or county boroughs, so that the Amendment would result in self-inspection over an important area of employment. I made clear in an earlier Amendment in Committee that the Government feel that it would be wrong to permit self-inspection, and your Lordships upheld that point of view. We think it desirable, in the interests of the local authorities themselves, that they should not be put in the anomalous position of being judges in their own cases. This is a point of view which has been strongly supported by the National and Local Government Officers' Association. The Factory Inspectorate have a long experience of administering fire provisions under the Factories Act, other than those relating to means of escape. I would invite your Lordships' attention to Clause 56 of the Bill, which enables a factory inspector to obtain a report from a fire brigade officer on any matter falling within the inspector's duties or which relates to fire. This follows a similar provision in the Factories Act. It ensures that the Factories Inspectorate are able to obtain advice on technical fire matters.
My Lords, it is relevant, I think, that under the Bill the Factories Inspectorate will have general responsibilities relating to fire precautions, including the means of escape under Clause 83, which deals with premises owned or occupied by the Crown. I ought also to mention that subsection (3) of Clause 52 refers to premises occupied by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. These premises are deemed to be occupied by the Crown under the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, and it would therefore be quite inappropriate for them to be inspected by a body other than the central Government authority. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
§ LORD LATHAMI must say that I regret the unhappy reflection upon the local authorities who are also fire authorities, in that they cannot be trusted, apparently, to do self-inspection. In the course of the experience and history of local authorities there has been 1302 nothing to suggest that they have fallen down. Where they have, to put it frankly, this dual loyalty, they have discharged both of them. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 2.52 p.m.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This is a long and complicated Bill, and perhaps I may first of all thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the care and attention which they have devoted to it during all its stages, which, in this House, have occupied some six days of Parliamentary time. A large number of Amendments have been moved, and we have had a full discussion, both on the principles and on the details of the Bill. The Government have tried, so far as they could, to meet the views expressed by noble Lords, but I recognise that they have not gone as far in some cases as noble Lords opposite would wish. There is no doubt that the Amendments which have been made to the Bill in this House have resulted in a number of important improvements.
We shall have about 75 Amendments to report back to another place. While many of these are Government Amendments, a lot of them drafting and consequential Amendments, there are others, both from the Government and from noble Lords opposite, which have improved the provisions concerning working space, temperature, drinking water, sitting facilities, and the training and supervision of persons working at machines; and yet others have modified the procedure relating to fire certificates, amended the exemption powers so that they may be used more selectively, widened the circumstances in which inspectors may disclose information, and provided for the protection of local authority inspectors. I think it is fair to say that the extent to which the Bill has been amended in this House and in another place is a token of the readiness of the Government to supplement and strengthen the Bill to meet the wishes of Parliament. I am grateful to all your Lordships for bringing your wide range of knowledge and experience to bear on this subject, and for the contributions that you have made to the changes in this Bill.
1303 If I may say so, and if it is not invidious to single out any particular noble Lord opposite, I should like to say how much I have admired the efforts of the noble Lord opposite in charge of the Bill, Lord Shepherd, and indeed other noble Lords who supported him. I hope they will feel that the time and the trouble they have taken over this Bill—and I know it has been considerable—has led to satisfactory results. I am grateful to them for their co-operation and for their constructive approach to the Bill. I should like also to thank my noble friends Lord Newton and Lord Denham for supporting me in this Bill. We have all come to recognise the speech by my noble friend Lord Newton on family businesses as an old friend.
§ LORD SHEPHERDNot a very favourable one.
§ LORD CARRINGTONNevertheless, an old friend. We all hope that this Bill will be an effective means of raising standards of safety, health and welfare in many thousands of premises throughout the country. In the course of its passage through this House, and in another place as well, public attention has often been focused on the welfare provisions of the Bill—space, temperature, washing facilities and so on. I do not in any way underrate the benefits that these requirements will bring, but far less publicity has been given to the equally important safety provisions and, above all, to those clauses dealing with fire precautions. Only last week a fire in a Richmond store brought home to us the sudden way an outbreak of fire can bring risk of injury or death to shop workers. There are also many offices in old buildings, perhaps converted from residential houses, from which the means of escape in the event of fire are totally inadequate. I am glad that this Bill will be a means of bringing greater protection against these risks to so many people.
Finally, we must not lose sight of the task which now confronts the various enforcing authorities under the Bill. It will be their job to breathe life into this Statute, and I feel sure that I speak for everyone in wishing them well in this venture. I am equally sure that a very high proportion of occupiers of premises covered by the Bill will be only too eager to ensure that their conditions satisfy the 1304 requirements of this Bill. My Lords, the enforcing authorities will no doubt show patience and understanding in helping all these occupiers to comply with their new obligations. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Carrington.)
§ 2.57 p.m.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, first, for his very kind remarks to me? I could not help but feel that they were slightly invidious, and perhaps I am really not very worthy of them. I regarded our whole approach to this Bill as a team effort; and may I thank my noble friends Lord Latham, Lord Champion and Lord Lindgren, and also the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who came down on two occasions in a most effective manner and who himself produced a major alteration of this Bill?
I could not help but reflect, while thinking of the proceedings in Committee and during Report stage—when, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, considerable improvements were made—that if we could have a similar approach to the London Government Bill and if we were able to achieve the same percentage of improvements, what a different. Bill that Bill would be when it came to leave your Lordships' House. The change in this Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill I believe stems largely from the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his two noble friends, who have given him great assistance during the passage of the Bill, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I wish to thank both of them.
We on this side of the House say farewell to the Bill with mixed feelings. As I have said, we have the satisfaction of having made improvements, but we are conscious of lost opportunity. We are very conscious of the 5 million workers who are being left outside the provisions of the Bill. These men and women are in the smaller industries, the smaller trades, the least protected of them all, most of them unorganised through trade unions; people who are in need of the type of provisions that the Government now feel are necessary for the workers in the offices and shops. Therefore as we have not been able to do it in this Bill, I hope that my Government, 1305 the Government that will follow this one, will see that that type of legislation will be early on its list, because it is urgently needed.
My Lords, we had a good debate, but I must reflect on the discussion we had on Clause 17, and the subsequent one on fencing under the Factories Act. There have been some notable speeches from noble Lords on the Cross Benches, the Law Lords. And I would hope, in view of the undertaking that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House gave, that the Government will bring before Parliament very speedily regulations to deal with the loophole of the lack of responsibility or duty laid upon employers in regard to certain types of machine. This Bill depends for its effect, first on the enforcement of which the noble Lord. Lord Carrington, spoke. And I hope that local authorities will prosecute and enforce this Bill as quickly as possible and to the maximum advantage.
A great deal will depend on the type of regulation that the Minister produces. We shall look with great anxiety to see the scope of those regulations. We shall look with special concern at the possible exemptions that the Minister himself may grant. I would hope that those exemptions would be of a very limited form and, if there is to be particular exemption in regard to class, that that would mainly rest as a decision of local authorities taking into account the local hazards and problems. I would hope that the Government should not make widespread exemptions by the Minister's Order.
There is much more that could be said, and my noble friend reminds me of theatres. I dealt with that matter when I spoke of the 5 million workers left outside the Bill. My noble friend Lord Latham spoke with great lucidity and sincerity on this flatter, and there are many other trades needing to be covered. I hope that in two or three years' time we who may still be sitting in this House may look back with some satisfaction in seeing that our hours of work have been well spent, that the local authorities and the Ministers have taken up the challenge, and that they will very speedily have brought an improvement to the conditions in many of our offices and shop premises.
§ 3.4 p.m.
LORD REAMy Lords, in view of the very far-reaching effects of this important Bill, it is perhaps appropriate that the third quarter might add its blessing—if I may use such an Irishism. This Bill has been worked out in detail in this House, and the admiration of the House goes out to those who have taken part in it, particularly in Committee stage. There are some disappointments on both sides of the House and both sides of the Opposition. But it is an important Bill and, if I may say so, it is encouraging for us to know that an office and shop premises Bill can be so skilfully negotiated by a First Lord of the Admiralty.
§ On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.