OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON)

When I saw this Amendment on the Marshalled List I scratched my head rather hard as to what the noble Lord was getting at, and I concluded that he was probably going to argue that the words we have put into the Bill, "severe physical effort", are too weak; but, in fact, he is arguing the other way round, and he thinks they are too strong. However, for practical purposes I do not think there is any difference between the two phrases. I have had recourse to the Oxford Dictionary in the Library, and on looking up the word "severe" I find it says: Of a labour or exercise, hard to sustain or endure; arduous". I then looked up "arduous", and it says: Of an activity, strenuous". So we have it that "severe" equals "arduous", equals "strenuous"; and "strenuous" is the word that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, appears to prefer to "severe". I then looked up "effort", and it says: The strenuous exertion of power, physical or mental". I next looked up "activity", and it says: The state of being active; exertion of energy". So it seems to me that the words already in the Bill, "severe physical effort", 688 mean "severe physical exertion of power"; and the words in the noble Lord's Amendment, "strenuous physical activity", mean "strenuous physical exertion of energy". I would suggest to your Lordships that, for practical purposes, there is really no difference between the two words.

The reason why I invite your Lordships to prefer what is in the Bill is that the words "severe physical effort", are much nearer the words in the Factories Act. The words in the Factories Act are, "serious physical effort"; but I am advised that we ought not to repeat the word "serious" in this Bill, because somebody learned in the law has suggested that the word "serious" can be construed as being the opposite of "frivolous", though apparently it never has been. For that reason, it seems that "severe" is more suitable. I hope the noble Lord will feel that there is really no great difference between us and will be able to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord does not make much use of dictionaries. It is possible by careful use of a dictionary (and this is a practice in which I once indulged on an Arctic expedition) ultimately to find words that come to the opposite meaning of the words you originally looked at. There are subtle differences. If we could take a count, I am sure your Lordships would reckon that "severe" was in fact severer and more strenuous than "strenuous". I do not quarrel about the words "effort" or "activity". I think "activity" is better, but I do not very much mind. It seems to me that the analogy of the Factories Act is where the Government have gone wrong. We are not talking about factories, but about different types of institutions. Obviously, this is not a matter of profound Party political difference, and I would not press it, but I should have said that "strenuous" is really a better word for this purpose.

One does not hear the word "severe" used in this sort of context, and the Government admit that they have put it in only because there was a misunderstanding about the word "serious". I think "severe" is open to the objection that most people who do not go to a dictionary and indulge in this dictionary game would reckon that it is something 689 very arduous indeed; something like working a pneumatic drill or lumbering—that is severe physical effort. I do not think one will find "severe" applicable to an office. I do not want to waste time on this matter, but I suggest that the Government are taking a slightly narrow view.

§ LORD NEWTON

The noble Lord says that people do not bother to go to dictionaries. I should have thought that this clause in the Bill, like all the other clauses, could conceivably fall to be interpreted by the courts, and presumably they would be concerned with the exact meaning of words. "Severe" in the dictionary I looked up is defined as, A labour or exercise; hard to sustain or endure; arduous". And, as I say, "arduous" is defined as: Of an activity, strenuous.". "Strenuous" is defined as: Of action or effort, vigorous; energetic; persistently and ardently laborious". I should have thought that if there is any difference in nuance between these two adjectives "strenuous" is shown to be slightly the stronger word of the two." As I understand it, the noble Lord was concerned because the word "severe" was too strong. I would suggest to him, on the face of what I have discovered from the dictionary, that he might leave it as it is.

§ LORD SHACKLETON

I will not press this. I disagree with the noble Lord, but I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)

The noble Lord has suggested in his Amendment, and in his speech, that 65 degrees is about the right temperature for sedentary workers. I do not think that on the whole I would quarrel with him about that. As a matter of fact, the temperature of this House is about 66 degrees. Some of us think it rather too warm, but that may well be because the ventilation is not very good. It is usually 66 degrees, unless noble Lords opposite get rather excited and are going to have a Division, when no doubt the temperature rises a few degrees.

§ LORD CHAMPION

That is internal combustion.

§ LORD CARRINGTON

Although I would not argue with the noble Lord on 692 these grounds (though individual preferences vary) there are one or two points which I would ask him to consider about this. First of all, 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 16 degrees Centigrade, which is in the Bill, is a legal minimum. This is the minimum temperature and, of course, it does not follow that because it is the minimum temperature the Government regard it as the ideal working temperature, which I readily accept is about 65 degrees for most men and women, though not all. I know that my noble friend Lord Newton says he likes working in a temperature below 60.8 degrees. We have to remember that the failure to observe this statutory minimum will constitute an offence which is punishable by a fine under the provisions of this Bill. I should have thought—and I think your Lordships would agree with me—that all employers will be anxious to make sure they do not commit an offence, and will in fact aim for a higher temperature than 60.8 degrees.

There is another point, though perhaps a subsidiary one. A good many heating plants in this country—one of them in my own home—are incapable of raising the internal temperature more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit above the level of the temperature outside, so that on the coldest days of winter it might be impracticable for many employers to keep a higher temperature than the standard laid down in the Bill. If we oblige every employer to maintain a minimum standard of 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit, that temperature will apply in the coldest room in his premises; and because of the way heating systems tend to work, the temperature in other rooms will certainly be at higher levels. If one sought to achieve a minimum of 65 degrees in the coldest room, I have a feeling that there would be quite a number of other rooms in the premises where it would be a good deal too hot. I think on the whole it would be better to leave the 60.8 degrees as the legal minimum, though acknowledging what the noble Lord opposite has very fairly said: that the temperature to be aimed at in the rooms is round about 65 degrees Fahrenheit.

§ LORD SHACKLETON

Once again I think the Government have shown that they do not know how inspectors work 693 in this matter. There are already minimum requirements of temperature for factories, and in the very cold weather there will be workrooms and factories—and this has been particularly true lately—where the temperatures will be below the legal minimum. But, because inspectors are reasonable people, they do not immediately start prosecuting: if there is a complaint, they urge the employers or the managers to do something about it. It is precisely because there are a large number of rather old-fashioned bits of heating equipment around that it is necessary to put the figure higher than this minimum. To my mind, it is quite absurd to have a 60—degree minimum for factories and a 65—degree minimum for shops and offices. All the evidence is that 65 is the minimum that is comfortable for anybody except the noble Lord, Lord Newton.

I assure noble Lords that in most offices, where people are trying to behave responsibly, they will aim for a temperature of at least 65 degrees. This argument that temperatures will be very much higher than 65 degrees, and the implication that the people will be uncomfortable if the coldest room is at 65, is not a serious one. Nor is the argument that there will not be more than 5 degrees in it. If it is an old-fashioned building the workers can almost certainly open the window and lower the temperature, and if it is not, if it is air-conditioned, there will in any event be a proper control over the temperatures.

I simply do not understand why the Government do not take this point. If 60 degrees is all right, then for purely sedentary occupations, where there is no real effort at all, 65 is the minimum. Even in a workroom where people may be sewing, or something of that kind, 60 degrees may be all right; but what concerns me is that so often temperatures are allowed to fall below the legal minimum, and shops inspectors are not going to move in very cold weather if the temperature is only three or four degrees below the permitted minimum. The result will be that it will really be too cold for people, and as in the recent cold spell, people will be sitting in offices in their overcoats. Nobody is seeking to press too hard on this matter, but one wants to arrive at what is the right minimum, and there is no doubt that 65 694 is the right minimum. I urge the Government—although I know they resisted it in another place—to accept 65 degrees. They have given no valid reason against it, except the noble Lord's own heating plant at home. I urge the Government to try to meet us on this.

§ LORD BURDEN

I want to say only two or three words in support of this Amendment. First, I understand that the workers themselves in the shops, through their union, are strongly in favour of the suggested figure of 65; and surely the point of view of those who have to work under those conditions ought to be considered by the Government. Secondly, the shop inspectors, through their union, the Association of Public Health Inspectors, who have a wide knowledge of office conditions, feel that 65 should be the figure in the Bill. Frankly, I wish the Government were not adamant and would give way on this point. It means a good deal to the decent working conditions in many shops throughout the country.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him if he can inform the Committee whether the Government have had consultations with the unions representing the workers; and, if so, in this matter what were their recommendations? If the unions' recommendation was 65 degrees that would again substantiate the view that was expressed, I think, in all sections of the House—for I remember that three or four speakers opposite said at Second Reading that in their opinion 65 degrees was the right temperature. I feel that the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about 60 being the minimum that could reasonably be enforced, was not a very valid one. Often these minima become the maxima; and I am quite sure that the Committee should insist, if there is sufficient weight of evidence that the noble Lord can give us from the unions, on this 65 degrees.

§ LORD LINDGREN

I wish to say only one or two words. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think, made his strongest point on the fact that the figure in the Bill constitutes a minimum, and that anyone allowing the temperature in his office to fall below that minimum immediately commits an offence; that if 695 we made the minimum 65 the offence would be in falling below 65. That is technically true. But, again, if I might follow up what my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, it seems that the noble Lord has not been well informed as to how these regulations or Acts of Parliament work in relation to either factories or workshops, or in shops and offices where they already exist.

When there is to be a prosecution, there has, of course, to be proof, and the statement of an employee that the temperature fell below 60.8 degrees is not evidence likely to be accepted in a magistrates' court. What happens is that where a temperature is persistently below the permitted figure, a group of employees complain to the factory inspector; or, as it will be under this Bill, to the inspector, who then starts to investigate. He sees what is happening; makes a spot check, and tests the heating system. Even then, there is not a prosecution straight away. There is consultation with the management, who promise to be better in future; and it is only where there is persistent avoidance of the regulations or an Act of Parliament that a factory inspector will prosecute. I have no reason to believe that an inspector under this Bill would be any less considerate in regard to its operation than inspectors have been in the past. It is only where there is persistent and continual ignoring of the Acts of Parliament, after warnings and pleadings by the inspectors and the employees, that any action is taken. Only a small number of cases reach the courts. For these reasons, I hope, having been an office worker myself, and knowing how uncomfortable it is to sit down and try to ponder over reports and work out figures when you are cold, that the Minister will concede this Amendment.

§ LORD CARRINGTON

I am afraid that I cannot do so, for the reasons I have already given in my first remarks to your Lordships. On the question of these inspectors, the fact remains that an inspector is there to see that the law is enforced, and I do not think it is right or proper to insert into a Bill a provision which is not intended to be enforced all the time. I think it very much better that we should put in a lower minimum and expect people to keep their offices at a higher tempera- 696 ture. I quite agree with noble Lords opposite that 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit is too little. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asks me whether any unions or organisations were consulted. I can tell him that 130 organisations, at one time or another, were consulted. Some of them said 65 degrees, some said more, and some said less.

§ LORD SHACKLETON

Who said less?

§ LORD CARRINGTON

I could not possibly tell the noble Lord.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Lord said "organisations". He does not mean unions. I asked about unions.

§ LORD CARRINGTON

Unions were consulted, as well as other organisations. I think on these occasions it must be for the Government to listen to what people have said and make up their minds, and in this particular case we think it reasonable that the legal minimum should be 60.8° Fahrenheit.

§ LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord is not being fair to the factory inspectorate. I hope in the course of our debates on this Bill noble Lords will succeed in educating members of the Government on how this operates. The 60° is continually broken now in factories. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and others with experience are aware that these people do their best. We are not putting in 65° knowing that it is a provision going, to be broken, any more than it is with 60°. If the First Lord did not understand the argument of my noble friend Lord Lindgren, I do not know how they think this provision is likely to operate. Inspectors have to be reasonable, and in all my dealings with them I have found that they are reasonable. The noble Lord concedes that 65° is right. Why not put it in the Bill?

§ LORD AMPTHILL

I would say, on the point that under extreme outside weather conditions not even this minimum will be reached, that that is possible. Modern plant in this country, I think, is designed on an average minimum temperature outside of 28° Fahrenheit. If the outside temperature happened to be 20° Fahrenheit, you might not be able to preserve your minimum. I am 697 sure the inspector would be understanding in a case like that, and the people in the room or rooms would understand, because in fact under those weather conditions something less than 60° would feel jolly cosy. I have thought a good deal about this, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his remarks. This is only a legal minimum, and this Bill covers a wide variety of premises, and a wide variety of conditions will be required for comfort. I have been in the air conditioning business myself and I can tell your Lordships it is quite extraordinary how different people's ideas of comfort are. If I were setting up an office now for purely sedentary people, I should not have less than 67° or 68°, because otherwise I do not think the typists would do the work. On the other hand, this provision covers other premises where workers might want a lower temperature. I thought at first that what was in the Bill was nonsense; but, having thought it over, I think it is right to leave it like this.

§ LORD CHAMPION

I thought the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, was coming very much to my rescue when he started. Certainly he was so far as office workers are concerned. But what I think he

§ LORD HAWKE

The noble Lord has spent most of his time in Malaya and therefore anything under 80 degrees would appear to be cold.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

In actual fact, I can assure the noble Lord that it is quite the opposite. If you have got sun in your body it is amazing how you can withstand the cold. This Amendment is an attempt to bring into the Bill a maximum temperature. The Gowers Report indicates that the British Medical Association were of the opinion, and decided, that any temperature in excess of 80 degrees for four hours was seriously detrimental to a person's health. If they put that as the figure for four hours, I should have thought that the temperature should be even further reduced for a worker working eight or nine hours. I would not stand on the question whether it should be 75, 76 or otherwise, but I feel that the Government should give some thought as to whether a maximum temperature for offices and shops should, so far as is practicable, be written into the Bill. A number of offices in factories are sited close to boilers and the conditions for the workers are often quite intolerable.

I should have thought that, when dealing with temperatures for offices, to provide decent standards for workers, we should consider the question of a maximum temperature. I am putting this forward rather as a probing operation, to see whether the Government are willing to concede the point that in this Bill there should be a maximum temperature in regard to offices and shops. Then, if we had the principle established, we could have some discussion on a friendly basis, such as we had a few minutes ago, on what that temperature should be. There may be a case for it to be 75, or perhaps a little higher. But I think the general 700 principle is that we should write into this Bill a maximum temperature for offices and shops. I beg to move.

§ THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

This desideratum would be much more difficult to achieve than that mentioned in the last Amendment. It is true that on all too few occasions our summer temperature exceeds 75 degrees, but when it does any building having a temperature more than that, brought about by merely conforming to the outside temperature, cannot unless it is air-conditioned have that temperature reduced. While it is reasonably easy to warm any premises by central heating or by electric radiators, it would be unreasonable to expect every small office throughout the country to instal air-conditioning, which would thereby reduce the temperature in hot weather to below 75 degrees.

§ LORD AMPTHILL

I agree that a temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit is not one in which it is reasonable to work. But to set it up as a maximum temperature under this Bill dealing with offices is, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said impracticable without air-conditioning. In our factories we have air-conditioning, partly for reasons of protecting our product and partly for the employees, and we maintain a maximum temperature of 72 degrees under the most extreme outside conditions. But that can be done only with expansive plant. If this figure were put into the Bill it would, in effect, compel everybody to put unit air-conditioners into these offices. They are most expensive items. There are exceptional summers in this country when one get high temperatures in one's office. Goodness knows ! I have them in my office in Cannon Street. But you cannot help it going even higher than 75; without air-conditioning you cannot keep it below that figure. The actual optimum conditions for comfort under these extreme conditions are 72 degrees Fahrenheit, and 58 to 60 per cent. in relative humidity. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, talked about rises in temperature when large numbers of noble Lords come into the Chamber. Actually, every individual gives off 5 British thermal units per minute.

§ LORD AUCKLAND

The difficulty about this Amendment seems to me to be that there are many old offices which have main rooms facing the sun. One has the alternative either of keeping the window shut, and hoping that the sun will not blaze on one's face, or keeping the window open so that the sun streams right down the back of one's neck. If this Amendment were put into force it could possibly be applied to individual offices, which have air-conditioning or other forms of convenience; but old offices would, as my noble friend Lord Ampthill said, be faced with an enormous expense. In any case, even air-conditioning is not always foolproof. So, on the whole, while this Amendment has a good deal of merit in it—because I myself do not like excess heat—for practical purposes it would be very difficult to enforce.

§ LORD CARRINGTON

My noble friends behind me have produced some rather formidable arguments against this Amendment, but I must confess to having some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is trying to do. Everybody knows that it is most disagreeable to work in rooms that are grossly overheated. I think the real difficulty here is to put in the Bill a statutory maximum temperature. If one does so, to comply with the statutory maximum might be difficult in a good summer and entail o great deal of expenditure in putting in air-conditioning plant.

Of course, there have been other cases in the Factories Act where this problem has arisen. The way the difficulty has been overcome—and it has, in a sense, been much more acute in factories, as Lord Shepherd himself suggested—is by a comparable provision to that in Clause 6(5) of this Bill. This enables the Minister to prescribe a standard of reasonable temperature for all premises or any class of premises. That was the way in which the problem was tackled in the Factories Act. Regulations have been made which prescribe a maximum permissible temperature in factories carrying on a particular process. I think we shall be able to follow this course in this Bill. For example, in shops or offices attached to bakeries, or something of that kind, regulations could be made, under the subsection I have read out, prescribing a maximum temperature 702 for that class of premises. Although I am in general sympathy with what the noble Lord is trying to do in his Amendment, I hope on the ground that there are already sufficient powers in the Bill to carry out what he has in mind, he will not press it.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I appreciated when I put down the Amendment the considerable difficulty in enforcing such a provision in the Bill. Obviously, I have in mind bakeries, as well as offices in some of our older factories where conditions are pretty grim. I appreciate that the Minister can deal with this by regulation. Could the noble Lord undertake between now and Third Reading, to seek an assurance from the Minister that it will be his intention to bring into force a regulation dealing with perhaps the worst types of offices that may exist in the country in which there is unreasonable temperature?

§ LORD SHACKLETON

Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to support that plea. We all accept that this is not possible in general terms. This applies not only to offices attached to bakeries, but also to department stores; and for long periods during the summer some sections in department stores enjoy, or suffer from, excessive temperature. I know this directly from my own firm, because of the vast amount of money we have had to spend in trying to ease this problem, and obviously through good design it could be done in time. It is just that one would like to see something in the Bill.

§ LORD CARRINGTON

I can certainly give the assurance that it is the intention of my right honourable friend to see that they work in a reasonable temperature. I have no doubt that if there are classes of premises such as those mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Shackleton, he will bring in regulations to see that temperatures in them are kept to a reasonable level.

§ LORD LATHAM

Would such regulations be applicable to the local authorities and to individual premises, as distinct from a class of premises?

§ LORD CARRINGION

Yes: either to a class of premises or to individual premises.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD BURDEN

I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and to call attention to the exemption in subsection (3)(b) which deals with rooms in which the maintenance of a reasonable tem- 704 perature is not practicable. Take, as an example, the maintenance of a reasonable temperature in an open-fronted shop. This might not be regarded as reasonable. I know that there is a general trend towards the close-fronted shop, and obviously that is desirable, but this Bill does nothing to encourage the fitting of shop fronts so as to improve the working conditions of the shop assistants. In fact, if a shopkeeper knows that he will have to provide adequate arrangements if he fits a shop front, he may be discouraged from so doing. The acceptance of this Amendment will help considerably those who are compelled for the time being to work in an open-fronted shop.

I should like to see the exemption of open-fronted shops removed entirely, not only in the interests of those who are employed in them but also on grounds of public health. Surely, it is a little unreasonable, with our knowledge of hygiene and so on, that foodstuffs such as fish, meat and so on should be exposed for sale in open-fronted shops, running the risk of dirt, dust and other matter from the streets, Therefore, there is everything to be said for encouraging shopkeepers to fit fronts to their shops, instead of giving them an incentive, such as this Bill does without the acceptance of this Amendment, to avoid fitting shop fronts. In those circumstances, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

§ LORD NEWTON

I quite take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in putting down this Amendment. And of course it is quite true, as he said, that under subsection (3) of Clause 13 a duty is placed upon the employer to permit his employees to use seats when the use of them does not interfere with their work. That provision, of course, is based on Section 37 of the Shops Act, and the circumstances in which the provision has effect can be more closely defined, I think, than in Clause 6 of this Bill, relating to temperature. What I mean is that it is reasonably easy to decide that, when there are no customers in the shop and there is no urgent work to do, then a reasonable opportunity for sitting down exists. On the other hand, in the case of the noble Lord's Amendment, as I understand the position the employer would be forced by law to 705 allow his employees to leave their work and go away to warm themselves whenever they said they felt cold.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

No, no. I never said so. The words are "reasonable access".

§ LORD NEWTON

I concern myself, as we all have, with what is the probable meaning of the words which the noble Lord has put in his Amendment, and I am advised that that is in fact the case. An employer would be obliged to let them go away from their work and warm themselves whenever they said they felt cold, and quite obviously that could lead to very difficult situations. So this is a very much more difficult and imprecise provision to enforce, than one which covers the employer's duty as regards providing seats.

I would point out that the Bill already states that, in the case of rooms to which subsection (3) of Clause 6 applies, conveniently accessible and effective means of enabling employed persons to warm themselves must be provided. I would suggest to your Lordships that the circumstances of the premises covered by this Bill are so various that it is really better to leave to the common sense of the employers and their employees the arrangements for making use of the means of warming. I really do not, for that reason, think that this Amendment is necessary, and I am quite certain that it would be very difficult to enforce it satisfactorily. So I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw it.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

That is a very unsatisfactory reply. In fact, the replies appear to be getting more unsatisfactory as this Committee stage proceeds. We have a position where we have recognised that there should be a proper standard of temperature for workers to work in. We recognise, however, that there should be exclusions; in the main, because of the merchandise that may be in the store. If the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is correct in saying that, because they are fully employed throughout their working day, employees should not have the opportunity of going to warm themselves if the temperature of the premises is below the minimum standard to which we have been forced to agree, then I think that is utterly wrong. I should have thought it was clearly understood 706 from the Bill that it was the Government's intention that, where rooms could not be given this minimum standard, there should be alternative arrangements made for the staff to warm themselves from time to time. But the Bill does not say that the employer shall permit his staff, even if it is to his inconvenience, to go into those rooms to warm themselves, to avail themselves of the requirements that you are writing into the Bill.

I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that he might consider the woman who works in a tobacco kiosk. Kiosks are the most draughty places in which a person can work. The assistant is often standing on concrete, rarely with any form of heating, certainly exposed to the winds and draughts, particularly those that blow around railway stations. But there may be only one person working in a kiosk, and according to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, the employer does not have to find time for that person to be able to go to use the facilities that the Government say the employer should provide. I think that is utterly ridiculous. If the Government really believe that these provisions should be made, they should ensure that the operatives have a reasonable chance of going to warm themselves, to make use of these facilities.

The noble Lord said that the situation with seats is different, but there are a number of employers who are reluctant to see their staff sitting on seats. They think it appears rather bad to the customer when he or she walks into the shop. But we in Parliament do not accept that. We say that, if an operative is not immediately employed, then he or she should have the opportunity to sit and rest. I think it is necessary, where the premises come under Clause 6(3)(a) and (b) that during the person's working time and at reasonable opportunities the employer should see that the operative has a chance to use the facilities that you, as the Government, feel should be written into the Bill. I do not think that this is an unreasonable attitude to take. I hope the noble Lord can have second thoughts.

§ LORD HAWKE

I think that the words written into the Bill as it is provide a reasonable assumption that these means of warming are there for use. I know 707 what the noble Lord is working at, but I believe that, in order to deal with a few ladies in kiosks, he runs a very grave risk of making a rather wide abuse, because it seems to me that this Bill will apply to places like Covent Garden and Smithfield markets, and the like. The porters there are working outdoors in outdoor clothing, and so on. If the noble Lord's Amendment were passed, those porters, who we all know are a very independent lot and are perfectly capable of holding the consumers and the producers to ransom at any moment, will decide that they have to have access to special methods of warming themselves as soon as they feel like having a sit down and a rest. The whole market will be subject to this form of "pressure", shall I call it? I believe that the Bill as it stands meets absolutely the noble Lord's point, and that it is a mistake to try to make any amendments to it.

§ LORD BURDEN

Can we hope that, if and when the new Covent Garden market is built, there will be some concern for the outdoor employees, and that they will not be left to warm themselves in perhaps the traditional way by which porters warm themselves to-day which I will not mention—I am sure it is in the minds of most noble Lords. But in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Newton, ignored the powerful plea that my noble friend Lord Shepherd put forward, calling attention to the fact that men and women work indoors, in places like tobacco kiosks, shops retailing fish and meat, and so on, in all weathers. The Bill provides—and we have accepted it—that no heat can reasonably be provided in the rooms in which they work. We have accepted that; but surely it is not unreasonable that there should be some room where the men and women can go, reasonably—not rushing off neglecting business, but reasonably; and that word is in the Amendment—to alleviate the effects of the inclement weather which they have to endure without any protection. May we ask the Minister to look at this particular Amendment again, to see whether he can accept it?

§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Before my noble friend Lord Newton replies, I hope he will say something 708 to answer what my noble friend Lord Hawke has said. No doubt there are abuses which could spring up in this respect, but, clearly, there is no earthly point in providing the sort of rooms which are mentioned in the last part of subsection (3) of Clause 5 unless people are going to be able to use them. It therefore may be that my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government think that the Bill itself implies that there shall be reasonable access to these rooms. If so, I have no doubt that the noble Lords opposite would be perfectly satisfied; but I hope my noble friend is not going to try to resist this Amendment on a point of drafting, saying that the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says that people can go to these rooms at whatever time they like. This is not what the Amendment says: it says that they shall have "reasonable access" to them, which is quite different. I say, with respect, that it is an entirely false point to resist this Amendment on that ground, and I hope he will not do so. If he can agree with my noble friend Lord Hawke, so much the better.

§ BARONESS HORSBRUGH

Surely it is a matter of words here. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he says that the words should be "reasonable access", because that sounds as if they must not be made to climb any walls or go round fences, and that they should be able to get to the rooms. What I should like more is to have such a phrase as "at reasonable intervals", or words to that effect. I think we should all agree that it would have to be laid down in some way that people should not be able to say, as some of us like constantly to say, "We wish to go and get warm" immediately they get cold. They would have to stay for a reasonable time. Granted, we could not put into the Bill what that time is; but I wonder whether some such words as "at a reasonable interval" would not meet the case.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

I must respond to the very helpful suggestion of the noble Lady. I appreciate that when one puts an Amendment down one does it to the best of one's ability. The intention of this Amendment is quite clear—and it is very much in line with what has been said by the noble Lady. If my words do not have that effect, I would 709 be very ready to accept other words that had the right effect: but I would ask the Government now whether they can meet us on this point. If they are ready to respond, then I am ready to withdraw my Amendment, and we can consider behind the scenes what words should be put in. I hope the Government can say they will concede the principle behind this Amendment.

§ LORD NEWTON

Subsection (3) says: … there shall be provided for persons who are employed to work in a room to which, but for the foregoing provisions of this subsection, subsection (1) of this section would apply, conveniently accessible and effective means of enabling them to warm themselves. The sort of premises which would be covered by that—and this is in reply, mainly, to the noble Lord, Lord Burden—are an office with a counter or grille exposed to the open air, such as an office in a bus station; open-fronted places like greengrocers' and fishmongers' shops; refrigerated rooms, and rooms in remote railway premises. Those are the sort of premises with which this subsection is meant to deal.

I explained why I could not accept the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I suggested to the Committee—and I think this is true—that it would be extremely difficult to define what was meant by "reasonable access" to these facilities for warming. That is why I suggested that there are some things which are better left to local arrangements and to the good sense of all those concerned. We have not written into this Bill that an employer should permit his employees reasonable access to washing facilities. I do not know whether your Lordships think that that would be a foolish thing to do, but I should have thought that it would.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

But they will be on the premises.

§ LORD NEWTON

It is very much the same sort of provision which the noble Lord is now asking me to accept. I think the Committee must appreciate that there are limits to the lengths to which one can go in describing details in a Bill of this kind. It is a very long and complicated Bill already; and, however far one goes, it is always possible to say that there is yet another situation which has not been met.

710 Having said that, I will say again that I cannot accept the Amendment on the Paper, but I will certainly consider again this principle in the light of the views expressed by your Lordships. I cannot commit myself to-day to accepting it, but I will indeed look at it in the light of what has been said. However, I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind what I think are the extreme difficulties of defining sufficiently accurately the situation which might result from the difficulties to which I referred in my first speech.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

I will respond to that by withdrawing the Amendment. I would say only this to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. In 1959 the Government took the view that this Bill was not necessary. They assumed that, with the improvements that were going on, the conditions in offices and shops would be such that a Bill of this kind was not necessary. We now find that the Government have come to the view that this Bill is necessary. It is wrong for us to assume anything. We should try to write into the Bill what we can, to cover the position of the workers. Later on, I shall show where this House let legislation go through which perhaps brought about a major change of law without our being aware of it. So I hope we shall not work on the basis that we can assume anything. In those circumstances, in view of the agreement of the Government to consider this matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ LORD HAWKE

We on this side of the Committee, I think, have sympathy with this type of Amendment, but I suggest to the noble Lord who moved it that it is an utterly impracticable thing to do. If he has ever sat in a room and watched a ray of sunlight enter, then he will realise that every scrap of air everywhere, except in a chemical laboratory, is full of dust and it always has been, 712 and it is impossible to exclude it. Therefore I should have thought that the words in the Bill adequate supplies of fresh or artificially purified air would meet his case, because I should have thought that adequate supplies of fresh or artificially purified air excludes air which is full of fumes. Although sympathetic to the noble Lord's aims, I believe his purpose is achieved in the Bill and that the Amendment is quite impracticable.

§ LORD BURDEN

I should like to say a word or two in support of this Amendment, and I speak out of a fairly long experience of offices, and railway offices in particular. I say in all seriousness that if a clause, Amendment or provision of this kind had been law, then over the years that I knew the railway service many lives which have been shortened would have been prolonged. I know it was not the fault of the railway companies. They were starved of capital. Their offices were built in the early days of the railways and they suffered from all the inconveniences and difficulties arising from that. I cannot say from my own knowledge what has been done since the Nationalisation Act of 1947, because my active life, so far as my being in some measure responsible for bringing inadequate office conditions to the attention of the railway companies, had then ceased. But I was glad to note what my noble friend Lord Lindgren told us in the Second Reading debate: that, since nationalisation, very great improvements have been effected in office accommodation. This may seem, on the face of it, trying to ask for the impossible. It is not doing that. We are only asking that men and women who work in a fairly confined space should at least have the advantage, so far as they can get it, of breathing uncontaminated air, and not air likely to affect their lungs and shorten their lives. It is a very serious Amendment, and I do ask the Government to treat it in that spirit.

§ BARONESS HORSBRUGH

I am sure this is a serious Amendment, but I must say that as I listened to the debate, I came to the conclusion—and I may be entirely wrong and not have understood it clearly—that in an office you can 713 never open the window. We have only to think of the dust that comes in—and you can see it on furniture—to realise that you cannot open a window in London. I have not followed the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, about the ray of sunshine. I have lately seen much more dust than sun. But it will be impossible ever to open the window. I understand that in large buildings they may be able to have facilities for the air to be purified, but to say, as we said under this Amendment, that in ordinary offices windows could never be opened, and all forms of air must be produced artificially, is not being practicable. I ant in favour of the very best conditions, but I cannot see that we should accept this Amendment and say that in future in no office can you ever open the window.

§ LORD SOMERS

May I add a word or two? The air outside in the street is a great deal more lethal than the air in any office, however old fashioned, whether it is provided with artificial air purification or not. It is crammed with diesel fumes and carbon monoxide from thousands of cars, besides other delights, and therefore I cannot help feeling there is no reason for this Amendment at all.

§ LORD LINDGREN

The noble Lords opposite think of offices and office workers as associated entirely with solicitors' or accountants' offices in the City of London or in other big cities. It is equally true that some of us on this side with industrial experience always think of the worst and not the best. But I can assure noble Lords opposite that I have seen office workers working in blast furnaces where in fact the steel is being smelted. The offices lie along the whole ridge of the furnace. The offices lie above the furnaces and the fumes and dust come through and in the case I am talking about there was no attempt to protect the office workers. I can think of another instance, of an aircraft factory where the time office was over the paint shop. If noble Lords had ever had to sit in an office over an aircraft paint shop, in which sprays were being used, they would not feel like having dinner, I can tell them bluntly, after sucking in the air in that office. Of course, the workers using the paint sprays wore masks and were given milk, but the poor old clerks in the office up top got nothing at all.

714 If the machinery of the Bill excludes fumes as well, there is a point in what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, says. But that is the type of office which we were considering when we put down this Amendment. Such offices still exist—not in the best of firms, I agree—and fumes and dust come into the offices and no extractor fans are used. It is for those offices that we put down this Amendment.

§ LORD DENHAM

When I answered an earlier Amendment from the opposite side of the House, I was taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for quoting the Factories Act, and was told that conditions in factories were not in any way comparable with conditions in premises covered by this Bill. I am now having the Factories Act quoted at me.

§ LORD SHACKLETON

It really is unfair to take an argument that applies to a completely different set of circumstances. We were talking about the spacing of machinery.

§ LORD DENHAM

We were talking about the health and comfort of employees, and the argument applies equally well in this case. There is already in the Factories Act a provision dealing with dust and fumes, and the noble Lord is seeking to bring this Bill into line with it. In fact, his Amendment goes much wider than Section 4 of the Factories Act, which is concerned with rendering harmless such fumes and dust as may be injurious to health and which are generated in the course of the factory processes". If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, all air in office, shop or railway premises would have to be free from dust. I suggest that it would be impossible to comply with such a requirement.

Injurious dust and fumes are a very real problem in some factories, with which the Ministry of Labour have been actively concerned over many years in administering the Factories Act. But the problem does not occur to anything like the same extent in offices and shops, and therefore the Government have been reluctant to include in the Bill a provision to meet a fairly rare eventuality. Where such cases arise, they will usually be in an office in a factory, where the nuisance arises from outside the office, and thus can be dealt with under the Factories 715 Act. In any case, I am satisfied that there are adequate powers under Clause 20(1) for my right honourable friend to make special regulations protecting workers against risks of injury to health arising from—and here I should like to quote the words used in the clause: the use of any machinery, plant, equipment, appliance or substance, the carrying on of any operation or the use of any process". This is a sufficiently wide definition to cover the hazards which the noble Lord may have in mind, and also the hazards which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, quoted, and I must therefore ask the Committee to resist this Amendment as unnecessary.

§ LORD CHAMPION

The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has pointed out a very useful clause in this Bill. I must admit that I had not spotted the point when this Amendment went down in the first place. All I can hope is that the Minister will use his powers under that clause. I am bound to agree with everyone who said that there is great difficulty about excluding dust. Unlike the noble Baroness, I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was talking about when he spoke of the rays of sunshine being filled with masses of particles of dust floating about in them. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that there are many more lethal places in London than an office. I think that about the worst place in London is Oxford Street on a still day. That is almost more lethal than smoking twenty cigarettes, about which the Lord President was talking earlier. I do not want to delay the Committee on this matter, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, was on a false point when he quoted the Factories Act against us and said that we had quoted it against him. It all depends on the circumstances of the case. Having regard to what I think is a reasonably satisfactory reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD CARRINGTON

The purpose of subsection (4) of Clause 9 is to enable the Minister by regulation to require separate lavatory accommodation for the 716 sexes. The subsection states that where persons of both sexes are, "or are intended to be", employed to work in the premises, the facilities will not be deemed to be suitable unless separate accommodation is afforded for persons of each sex. On reflection, we do not think it would be possible to enforce a provision of the regulations in cases where the employer merely had the intention of employing at some date in the future a staff consisting of both sexes. The words are therefore unnecessary and we would rather they were omitted. I beg to move.

§ LORD SHACKLETON

Surely it would be a little late to do anything about it, when a firm actually decided to employ the two sexes. Surely, there is really merit in this phrase. I appreciate the Government's difficulty, but I should have thought that it was a mistake to leave out these words.

§ LORD CARRINGTON

I do not think that it will be too late. If a firm intend to employ workers of both sexes, they will have regard to the obligations they have to comply with when they do employ them.

§