Government Bill on Premises?
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BY OUR PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENT
THE House of Commons gave an unopposed second reading, last Friday, to Mr. Harold Davies' Nonindustrial Employment Bill, which would empower the Home Secretary to lay down minimum requirements for premises of many kinds, including some bus termini and railway premises.
The main objection came to it . on the ground that it was too large a measure for a Private Member to handle. For the Government, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. HeathcoatAmory, said that the Government "mean and intend" to see that the gap in legislation on this subject was filled.
He could not, however, say when. He thought the matter should be dealt with by Government legislation, but emphasized that there must be consultations between the parties concerned to make sure that regulations could be properly enforced. As soon as Parliamentary time could be found, the Government intended to • introduce legislation of broadly the same scope as Mr. Davies' Bill. The Government were in entire agreement with the general objective of the Bill.
When Mr. Davies moved the second reading, he recalled that since the Cowers Committee published its report on this subject in 1949 there had been scores of Parliamentary questions about it Mr. Jeger (Lab., Holborn), who seconded the Bill, said that there were half a million employees of British Railways who were outside the scope of any protective legislation.
Mr. McCorquodale (Con., Epsom). arguing that the scope of the Bill was too wide for a Private Member's measure, said that if it went to committee, it would need "very radical treatment." Maj. Legge-Bourke (Con., Isle of Ely) thought the Bill should be split up— one to deal with shopkeepers, another to deal with the catering trade, a third on agriculture and another to deal with the transport industries.
The Bill now goes to a standing committee. Here it faces a great ordeal for, as Mr. McCorquodale said, there will be hundreds of amendments to meet technical and working objections to the provision of regulations. Mr. McCorquodale, for example, took objections to the powers given by the Bill to the Home Secretary to make these regulations, preferring to have in the Bill itself what the minimum standards should be.