Lords Sitting of 13 March 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Abereonway—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Strabolgi—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

AIR FORCE RESERVE (PILOTS AND OBSERVERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

ARBITRATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provisions relating to umpires.
5.—(1) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (b) of the First Schedule to the principal Act (which sets out certain provisions which are to be implied in an arbitration agreement unless the contrary intention is expressed therein):—
"(b) if the reference is to two arbitrators, the two arbitrators shall appoint an umpire immediately after they are themselves appointed," and in paragraph (c) of Section five of the principal Act after the word "arbitrator" there shall be inserted the words "or where two arbitrators are required to appoint an umpire."
(2) At any time after the appointment of an umpire, however appointed, the Court may, on the application of any party to the reference and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, order that the umpire shall enter on the reference in lieu of the arbitrators and as if he were a sole arbitrator.
(3) At any time after an umpire has entered on a reference in lieu of the arbitrators, whether under the provisions of this section or otherwise, any of the arbitrators may give evidence or act as an advocate on behalf of any party to the reference.
LORD ASKWITHmoved, in subsection (3), after "arbitrators," to insert "and as a sole arbitrator." The noble Lord said: I am moving that certain words be inserted to show that the arbitrators must have shed their power of arbitration before they can appear either to give evidence or as advocates, if they do both or either, before the umpire. It is an endeavour to meet the point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on the Second Reading, when he was doubtful owing to the strength of the wording. It is clear, I think, from the law, which was decided some time ago, that an arbitrator under those conditions actually leaves his power of arbitration, except, possibly, in the circumstances that the umpire might die and the arbitrators might be called upon to appoint a new umpire. The reason was given in a case before the Court of Appeal. The present noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, then sitting as Lord Justice Sankey, pointed out that in certain cases the arbitrator, or the man who had been appointed an arbitrator, was the only person who really could, as an expert, say anything about the goods. In the event of the goods being perishable goods they might have to be destroyed at once. The case in question, I think, was one where a ship had been detained in the Goodwins and was carrying meat from the Argentine to London. The meat got old and mouldy and bad and the question was whether it was due to the detention or whether it was due to the bad packing. The Court decided in that case that evidence could be given by the arbitrator after he had shed his power of arbitration and when the umpire had the sole decision. These words make it clear that the umpire has the sole decision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3 line 39, after ("arbitrators") insert ("and as a sole arbitrator").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ATKIN: Before Clause 5 is put, I should like to point out that in subsection (3) there is a provision that after an umpire has entered on a reference in lieu of the arbitrators, any of the arbitrators may give evidence or act as an advocate on behalf of any party to the reference. The position of an advocate is one that is quite inconsistent with that

99
of an arbitrator, whether an umpire is acting in lieu of him or not, and it appears to me to be a very dangerous practice to give statutory validity to the conception that anybody, once he has been appointed as an arbitrator, can in an arbitration act as an advocate. There are certain classes of cases, commercial arbitrations, where it has been quite usual for this practice to be adopted and I do not think it should be brought to an end. But that depends entirely upon the consent of the parties by reason of their having entered into an arbitration of a kind in which it is usual for them first to give evidence and then to act as arbitrator. In this case, however, the arbitrator would have power to act as advocate against the will of the other side, which, it appears to me, would constitute a very grave difficulty and would be objectionable in principle. I do not know whether the noble Lord would be willing to consider the possibilities of omitting those words, because if he did it would leave the right to act by consent quite untouched.
LORD ASKWITH]: I have had a conversation with my noble and learned friend. As he seems to object to the words "or act as an advocate" I am prepared to agree to those words being omitted. I will do that on Report.
LORD ATKIN: That will be quite satisfactory.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
LORD RHAYADERmoved to insert the following new clause after Clause 9:
Enforcing award.
". On any final award (not being an award in the form of a special case) for a liquidated sum, the party in whose favour the award is made shall be at liberty to serve on the other party or parties a copy of the award, and on filing at the Court an affidavit of service and copy of the award judgment shall be entered in the terms of the award."
The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment at the request of the Chamber of Shipping. They quite recognise that the Bill goes a long way in the right direction, but they feel that it ought to go a little further in their direction. At present there is a great deal of delay as well as unnecessary expense in enforcing awards. You have to go to Court and it is very easy to set up fictitious counter-claims which cause delay.
100
I am told that that practice is not infrequent. Section 12 of the principal Act provides that the award may, by leave of the Court or a Judge, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment, and Clause 10 of this Bill carries that out to some extent in cases where leave is given by the Court. But it is very frequently desirable to go further than that. In cases where a straight award is made for a liquidated sum—that is to say, an award for a specified sum at a specified rate—the successful party might be put in a position to enforce the award without delay in exactly the same way as a successful litigant can enforce a judgment of the Court.
I quite see that there may be difficulty in applying such a rule to an award in the form of a special case which necessitates a decision of the Courts, but I can see no good reason why simple awards for liquidated sums to one or other of the parties should not be treated in the same way as la judgment. In the case of a judgment specifying that a certain sum is due to one of the parties it is filed at the Court and execution can immediately be issued if the amount is not paid. In the case of a simple award the party in whose favour the award is made should be at liberty, on serving a copy of the award on the other party, to file at the Court an affidavit of service of the final award and thereupon judgment should be entered without any application to the Court for the amount specified by the award to be payable. That is why I put this proposed new clause on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Rhayader.)
LORD ASKWITH: I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. It introduces ground for controversy which would make things very difficult. He goes much further than either the MacKinnon Report or the Reports of other Committees which have dealt with this particular question. The Amendment would give the go-by to Section 12 of the original Arbitration Act, 1689, which says that an award or submission may, by leave of the Court or Judge, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the Court, and it gives the go-by to Clause 10 of this Bill. I might

101
point out that the MacKinnon Committee did not go so far as to say that an award of this kind should necessarily be filed as a judgment of the Court. They gave certain ways in which delays might be mitigated. One is by an amendment of Order 64, Rule 14, as to the time within which questions may come before the Court or when an award might become, through the Court, a judgment. That time should not be so long as to prevent a judgment being obtained earlier. They also mention something which is secured by the Schedule to this Bill; that is, that security of costs should be obtainable.
A final judgment in the terms of the award can be given under Clause 10 of this Bill, where leave is given, as under Section 12 of the principal Act. That makes it a judgment of the High Court and the MacKinnon Committee gave a strong hint as to the value of a judgment compared with an award in foreign countries. Foreign countries pay much more attention to a judgment of the High Court in England than to the decision of an arbitrator of whose appointment they know nothing, of whom they have not heard, who may be simply an arbitrator ad hoc and who has really no locus standi in the eyes of the public though he may have as between parties. I therefore suggest that this proposed new clause goes too far and that it would be much safer to leave the matter as it is at present with the additions that have been put into the Bill. Further, supposing an award could be made a judgment in this manner, it creates difficulty in cases where an application ought to be made to the Courts for setting aside judgment on the various grounds that might be alleged, because it has already become a judgment from the fact of the award being given, and a most serious position and grave injustice might result in such a case. Therefore I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I hope my noble friend will not persist in this Amendment. Apart altogether from the observations which have been addressed to us by the noble Lord opposite, in answer to this Amendment, I think there is very grave objection to the proposed new clause as it stands. All that has to be done is to serve a copy of the award
102
and then, on filing at the Court an affidavit of service and copy of the award, judgment shall be entered. Judgment is to be entered without the other party having an opportunity of stating grounds why judgment should not be entered. There may be various objections to the award, and I think from every point of view this clause is objectionable. It does what would never be allowed in any court of law—namely, an ex parte application to be made resulting in judgment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): I would like to join in the appeal to the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment. It would result in judgment being given without the other party having an opportunity of asking for a stay, pending proceedings to set aside the award. I am all in favour of speeding up the Arbitration Law and the ordinary law, but really this Amendment gives no time to other parties, but enables an award to be turned into a judgment without the party against whom it is made having an opportunity of raising any objection to it.
LORD RHAYADER: This Amendment appears to have brought up against me a number of legal authorities, and, although I feel that we ought to find some better way of dealing with the matter than we have at present, possibly my Amendment goes too far, and I must leave it at that. I recognise so fully the authority of my noble friend Lord Askwith on this question, that I shall bow to his judgment rather than follow my own, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Limitation of time for commencing arbitration, proceedings.
16.—(1) The statutes of limitation shall apply to arbitrations as they apply to proceedings in the Court.
(4) For the purpose of the statutes of limitation as applying to arbitrations and of the said Section four hundred and ninety-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by this section, an arbitration shall be deemed to be commenced when one party to the arbitration agreement serves on the other party or parties a notice requiring him or them to appoint an arbitrator, or, where the arbitration agreement provides that the reference shall be to a person named or designated in the

103
agreement, requiring him or them to submit the dispute to the person so named or designated.
(5) Any such notice as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section may be served either:—

(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served; or

(b) by leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode in England of that person; or

(c) by sending it by post in a registered letter addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode in England;

and where a notice is sent by post in manner prescribed by paragraph (c) service thereof shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post.
(7) For the purposes of this section the expression "the statutes of limitation" includes any enactment limiting the time within which any particular proceeding may be commenced.
LORD RHAYADERmoved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a question of considerable controversy. At the same time it does try to deal with a very real grievance in regard to shipping matters—a grievance which is very constantly occurring, and that is with regard to the form of serving notices where the other party is a foreigner. I remember a case given to me where there was a Norwegian shipowner whose ship had been chartered to a San Francisco charterer, who sublet the ship to an Australian charterer. There was an arbitration clause in the agreement made. The San Francisco charterer did not fulfil the terms of the charter, the ship was late, and heavy loss resulted to the Australian charterer. The Australian charterer wishes to enforce the arbitration clause, which runs as follows:
"That any dispute arising under this charter shall be referred to arbitration in London (or another port if arranged) one arbitrator to be nominated by the owners and another by the charterers, and in case such arbitrators shall not agree then to the decision of an umpire, who shall be appointed by the said arbitrators, and the award of the said arbitrators or umpire shall be final and binding upon both parties hereto. The arbitrators, including the umpire, shall be commercial men."
That is the clause, but how is this unhappy man in Australia to enforce the clause against the man in San Francisco?
He can bring an action in the Courts, but that is a very long and expensive process, and what is wanted, it seems to
104
me, is the carrying out of the arbitration clause. That would be done if he could serve his notice, and to some extent Clause 16 of the Bill deals with this service of notice, but deals entirely with the service of notice in this country, and there can be no possibility in this particular case of serving notice outside this country. Again I would say to Lord Askwith that some way ought to be found of dealing with these cases, and in this particular instance I have the support of the MacKinnon Committee, which in paragraph 6 (h) of its Report, says this:
"for substituted service of notices required by the Act; this should include a provision for the service upon an agent in this country of a party resident abroad—a thing not included in the ordinary machinery of the Courts under the name of "substituted service." Any such order should specify the time within which such a notice shall be complied with, having regard to the course of post, to the residence of the foreigner concerned, etc."
Subsection (5) of Clause 16 does nothing in such a case, and I have therefore moved to leave out subsection (5) in order to substitute for it the new clause on the Paper.
That clause says:
". Any notice under the Arbitration Acts, 1899 to 1934, may be served either—

(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served, or to an agent in England who signed the reference to arbitration on behalf of a party or parties abroad; or

(b) by leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode in England or abroad of that person, or of an agent as aforesaid; or

(c) by sending it by post in a registered letter addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode in England or abroad, or to an agent as aforesaid."

It seems to me a reasonable and possible procedure. These shipping men, practically all of them, have agents in London, and if the clause which I have suggested were accepted the difficulty of my Australian friend would not arise. I am afraid that a great many questions of legal jurisdiction, and of the power of pleading in foreign Courts and tinder foreign law, and so forth, may arise, but I hope that those difficulties may be disposed of. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, leave out subsection (5).— (Lord Rhayader.)
LORD ASKWITH: I understand from the method in which the Amendment is put down that if subsection (5) remained the proposed new clause after Clause 16 would not come in. If, on the other hand, subsection (5) were omitted from the Bill, then the noble Lord's proposed Lew clause after Clause 16 would come in. I am sorry that I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment, because I know that the noble Lord is anxious to improve arbitration and to assist in any way he can. But I must point out to him that there are two kinds of service in the Courts. There is the ordinary service, which would apply to arbitration as well, where a person can easily be found, where his address is known, and where an agent is appointed who is prepared to act upon his behalf. Those would be ninety or more cases out of 100. But in the other cases where a man wishes to get away, or where for one reason or another there is evasion, you have to have substituted service.
Now substituted service is not a very easy thing for which to lay down rules. An attempt, I have been told, was made in 1928 by a very strong Committee, and they came to the conclusion, after discussing it at great length, that it could not be introduced into arbitration; that arbitration should not be hampered by a large number of rules, as in a substituted service. If substituted service, particularly to deal with cases abroad, did come into use now, it would be much more suitably introduced in some amendment of the Arbitration Act of 1930, which deals with foreign awards—an Act which I have not attempted to interfere with, and which raises a most difficult and controversial subject. If it is in the Court, the position is rather different. You have there a solicitor, who is an officer of the Court, has got a place of abode in London, and is known. He is acting as the agent of this person. If the case is in the High Court there is a writ, and there is an entry required. Those identify the people, and they identify the place of service, and the person can be got at. But with an arbitrator, until an arbitrator is appointed he cannot enter upon his reference. He cannot get hold of the people, and there is no one upon whom he can serve the thing or with whom he can deal. He is obliged to act upon his own, and he has none of the powers of the Court of getting at the person, or of
106
finding out whether the substituted service has really arrived or not.
The way out is really for these great associations, like the Shipping Association that my noble friend talked about, to follow the example of other associations. There is the Incorporated Oil Seed Association and the London Corn Trade Association—both very important associations indeed—and they do not attempt to go as far as my noble friend proposes. The first of these associations says that the service of proceedings upon a person, where substituted service is required, by leaving the same at the office of the London Corn Trade Association together with the posting of copies of such proceedings to his Address abroad, or in Scotland or Northern Ireland, is to be deemed good service, any rule of law to the contrary notwithstanding. The man must be a member of the London Corn Trade Association, and he must agree in his contract that a letter sent to him at the London Corn Trade Association is good service upon him. Further than that, subsection (5) is limited in its construction; but by this new clause the Court, once the judgment had been entered, would be unable to do anything more. It would introduce a more serious change than anything I had contemplated by this Bill, and I think it would not apply to arbitration in general and, except in a very few cases, would not be required at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to make a similar appeal to my noble friend. I am not without sympathy with him, but the object of this Bill is to keep the law of arbitration as simple as possible, and we do not want, if we can avoid it, to have any complicated procedure, which has unfortunately not only delayed, but rendered legal matters so very much more expensive. One of the most complicated matters in legal procedure is this question of substituted service. We have had a great number of decided cases upon it. There is always great difficulty with regard to it, both with regard to the agent upon whom the service is to be made, and the place at which the service is to be made. Fortunately this Bill, as drafted, avoids all these complicated questions. And may I point out to the noble Lord that if parties to an arbitration really do desire to provide for service on agents, the

107
remedy is in their own hands, and they can set up the necessary machinery in their own arbitration clause? I think this has been done in many arbitration clauses, which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, particularly in the corn trade clause, which provided for service on brokers. There seems to be no reason why this should not be done in other cases. At any rate, to apply this generally would complicate the simple arbitration proceedings to a most unpleasant degree.
LORD RHAYADER: I shall certainly not press this. At the same time there is a real grievance, which ought to be dealt with somehow, and the main object of the Arbitration Act is, I understand, to get rid of the Courts. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RHAYADERmoved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: The MacKinnon Report raises this point in paragraph 44, which says:
"There are certain statutes which refer to the bringing of a suit, or taking legal proceedings, or the like, as affecting rights and liabilities. Instances are as follows:—

(a) Section 496 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1891, which deals with deposits of freight with a wharfinger, provides in subsection (3) that at the expiration of thirty days 'unless legal proceedings have in the meantime been instituted by the shipowner,' etc.

(b) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924, Schedule, Article III, Rule 6, provides that all liabilities shall cease 'unless suit is brought within one year,' etc.

(c) Section 3 of the Limitations Act, 1623, speaks of 'actions of debt…being commenced and sued,' etc."

Subsection (7) says that for the purpose of this section—that is Clause 16 of the Bill—
"the expression 'the statutes of limitation' includes any enactment limiting the time within which any particular proceeding may be commenced."
Subsection (4) refers to Section 496 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but not to these other Acts, so that apparently the beginning of proceedings is only effective under subsection (7) in so far as it refers to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Section 490. I am not quite sure whether it is intended to apply to the other Acts or not, or whether an Amendment can be put down to make it apply to those
108
Acts if it does not so apply at present. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Rhayader.)
LORD ASKWITH: The reason for this subsection is that the technical words "the statutes of limitation" might be taken only in their narrow sense, and so it is intended in using the phrase in this Bill to include in it "the time within which any particular proceeding may be commenced"—that is, not only under the Merchant Shipping Act, but under all Acts where arbitration is required. I do not think it is advisable to name any particular Acts. The subsection is really necessary to prevent a wrong construction being placed upon the words "statutes of limitation."
LORD RHAYADER: Still I am not quite clear. I meant to read further words in the MacKinnon Report. This is what is said:
"To start arbitration proceedings is certainly within the spirit, but not the letter of this sort of provision. It might be well to provide in the suggested new Act (a) that when a party to a submission gives written notice claiming arbitration to the other party he shall be deemed to institute arbitration proceedings, and (b) that the institution of arbitration proceedings shall be deemed to be the institution of proceedings within Section 496 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, or the bringing of suit within the rule of the Act of 1924, or the commencement of an action within the Act of 1623. There may perhaps be similar provision in other Acts of which we are not at present aware."
Do I understand that it is only to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, that this clause at present relates?
LORD ASKWITH: I think this would be a definition applying to all the Acts. The Committee at the end of their Report stated that:
"There may perhaps be similar provisions in other Acts of which we are not at present aware."
That brings in all the Acts.
LORD RHAYADER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I think I have been rather unfortunate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Saving for pending arbitrations]:
LORD ASKWITH: On this clause I should mention that Lord Amulree called attention to the Industrial Acts. I have looked at those Acts. The ones in question would be the Conciliation Act, 1896, and the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. The introduction of this measure does not affect them at all, The argument would have to be that the main Act of 1889 does not apply, and that the Arbitration Acts, 1889–1934, supersedes the conditions laid down in these Industrial Acts, which it does not do.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The object of this Bill is to place on a permanent footing the prohibition of importation of synthetic organic dyestuffs and intermediate products used in their manufacture, which was enacted by the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920. That Act was originally passed for a period of ten years only and would have expired on the 14th January, 1931, had it not been prolonged by successive Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. The Act of 1920 aimed at the establishment of a healthy dyestuff industry in this country in order that the serious shortcomings which the War period had shown to exist in the home sources of supply might be remedied. Whereas in 1913 the annual output of dyestuffs in this country was about 9,000,000 lbs., it increased rapidly during the War period, and in 1922 had reached about 24,000,000 lbs. If the industry had remained unprotected after the War, the powerful dyestuffs organisations abroad would have been enabled to crush the comparatively weak industry in this country. Under the protective effect of the prohibition of importation, except under licence, the industry has grown by leaps and bounds, and in 1929 the output reached nearly 50,000,000 lbs.
110
In more recent years, this figure has somewhat decreased owing to the depression in the consuming industries but has remained very near to 50,000,000 lbs. per annum. Whereas in 1913, something less than 22 per cent. of our total consumption of synthetic dyestuffs was made in this country, in 1922 the percentage had risen to 79 per cent.—although the number of varieties was still comparatively small—and at the present day amounts to about 90 per cent. of our consumption, with a very large increase in the number of varieties of dyestuffs manufactured. A large number of special dyestuffs which are used in small quantities, running into, perhaps, 1,000 to 2,000 varieties, are still imported, so that the variety of dyestuffs made by the British industry is still insufficient for consumers' needs and continued protection is necessary. As regards intermediate products, which are substances intermediate between coal tar distillates and the finished dyestuffs, whereas in 1913 practically none was made in this country, at the present time imported intermediates are little more than 1 per cent. of the total output of dyestuffs in this country. It will be seen that the Act of 1920 has had in large measure the effect for which it was designed—namely, to build up in this country a dyestuff industry which will enable our consumers of dyestuffs to obtain their requirements from the home manufacturer. It has, at the same time, had beneficial action in other directions. It has promoted very considerably the output of the chemical engineering industry in this country. Chemical plant for dye-making not previously obtainable here is now readily procurable, and practically all machinery and plant necessary for the manufacture of dyestuffs can now be obtained without difficulty from British chemical engineering manufacturers.
The establishment of a healthy dyestuff industry has also served the very vital purpose of enabling this country to have ready to hand an organic chemical industry available at short notice for the output of munitions of the various types required for purposes of national defence. Your Lordships may say that all these advantages have been gained at the expense of the consumer—what about the price? I hear the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, say, "Hear, hear." I have great pleasure in telling your Lordships

111
that, although the output of dyestuffs has been so vastly increased during the period of operation of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, prices have declined very materially from those which obtained immediately after the War. Whereas the average price of all dyestuffs made in the United Kingdom in 1913 was about ls. Perlb., and in 1920 about 4s. 4d.per lb., at the end of 1928 it was ls. 6½d. per lb. Since that date further reductions took place, but during 1932 prices again rose to the 1928 level. Early in that year an agreement was reached between the chief Continental suppliers of dyestuffs and the largest manufacturers in this country. The price increase which occurred appears, however, to have been merely an increase from a level to which prices had been reduced in 1928 in the hope of obtaining more business—a hope said to have proved vain. It is understood that prices have not varied since 1932, and I may say that these prices compare very favourably with the prices obtaining in Germany.
The Act of 1920 provided for the constitution of a Licensing Committee to advise the Board of Trade as to the grant of licences for the importation of dyestuffs, colours and intermediate products. In addition, it provided for the establishment of a Development Committee to advise the Board of Trade in respect of the efficient and economical development of the dye-making industry. The Development Committee, in a Report made in 1932 on the dyestuffs industry in this country, recommended by a majority that the Act should be continued on the existing basis for a period of three years. A minority, however, representing the colour users on the Committee, were unfavourable to any extension of the existing prohibition, on the grounds mainly that the existing Act had sufficed to build up a healthy dyestuff industry and that in this country the agreement arrived at between the chief British dye-makers and those of the Continent made further protection unnecessary. In view of the conflicting advice which the Board of Trade received from the Development Committee, the question of the future of the dyestuffs industry was, in December, 1932, referred by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Import Duties Advisory Committee who were invited to consider the position which would arise on the
112
expiry of the existing Act, whether it should be continued and, if so, for how long and under what conditions, or, alternatively, if it should be discontinued and, if so, what the position should be with regard to import duty on the products previously covered by it.
The Committee presented their Report in July, 1933, in Command Paper No. 4411. Their main recommendation was that the prohibition of importation of dyestuffs and intermediate products should be continued indefinitely, but that colouring matters which are within the Act of 1920 should no longer be prohibited from importation. It was considered that these could be adequately dealt with under the import Duties Act, 1932. The Committee further recommended that dyestuffs should no longer be subject to the general ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. but that intermediate products, in general, should remain liable to this duty. They recommended further that any complaints from responsible bodies of consumers of exploitation in respect of prices charged for dyestuffs or intermediate products should be referred to an independent body for consideration and that that body should have power to investigate the position and publish their findings. The Import Duties Advisory Committee were themselves prepared to undertake that task. The present Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee apart from those relating to questions of import duty, and, except in one or two simple matters relating to administration, does not go beyond those recommendations. The recommendations relating to import duties are such as the Import Duties Advisory Committee are themselves in a position to initiate. As the result of such action on their part, synthetic dyestuffs have already been placed on the Free List, and an application is at present before the Committee to place certain intermediate products used by dyers instead of dyestuffs on the Free List in addition.
Coming to the Bill itself, Clause 1 removes the limitation of ten years on the operation of the 1920 Act and provides for its continuance as a permanent measure. The method followed in the clause is the normal method for continuing indefinitely an Act which has previously had a limited operation. It was followed, as your Lordships will

113
remember, in the case of the Summer Time Act, 1925. Clause 2 defines in some detail the substances which are within the prohibition on the one hand and those which are excluded on the other. Clause 3 gives effect to a recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee for amending the constitution of the Development Committee. Whereas under the Act of 1920 the constitution of the Development Committee was defined as being simply a Committee of persons concerned in the trades of dye maker or dye user and of such other persons not directly concerned in such trades as the Board may determine, under the new Bill the Development Committee has for a nucleus the Licensing Committee which will advise the Board on the issue of licences; and in addition, representatives, first, of the textile industry; secondly, of the heavy chemical industry; thirdly, of chemical science; and fourthly, of the two Government Departments (namely, the War Office and the Board of Trade) which are mainly interested in the dyestuff industry.
Clause 4 is an entirely new clause, which has no counterpart in the principal Act. It is an important clause for the protection of the consumer of dyestuffs and gives effect to the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that they should have power to investigate complaints by substantial consumers when their interests are prejudiced by the prices charged. Provision is made that a report of the Committee following such a complaint shall be made to the Board of Trade and be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It is provided, also, that the Import Duties Advisory Committee shall have, for the purposes of the inquiry, the powers of obtaining information conferred upon them by the Import Duties Act, 1932. Clause 5 lays down provisions as to the future printing of the principal Act when this Bill is passed; and Clause 6 contains merely the short title.
The proposals in the Bill are put forward by the Government as being required for the continued protection of the dyestuff industry, an industry which is important for national defence as well as providing essential material for some of our largest export trades. The Bill also provides for the continued expansion of the industry, while giving consumers adequate protection against any possible abuse by the industry of its exceptional
114
position. This Bill was passed by another place on the 18th December last on Second Reading by a majority of 173; it passed through Standing Committee without amendment and was read a third time on the 5th of this month by a majority of 155. It is considered by the Government to be a necessary and not unimportant part of their policy of providing reasonable protection for the industries of this country, and I confidently recommend it to the acceptance of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the Opposition are not opposing this measure, but we would like the noble Lord, if it is possible, to give a little more information. I thought he very cleverly slurred over the question of price in a rather remarkable manner, by omitting to give us the actual price level per lb. to-day as compared with the price level in 1913. Of course, he realises that the high level of 4s. 4d. in 1929 and 1930 was a purely fortuitous price level, which has no relation to actual facts. If, therefore, we may have some idea about the price level to-day as compared with 1913, I think that will assist the House.
Then he mentioned an exceedingly interesting point, the use of this industry for the provision of munitions of war. The question arises whether the Government have any arrangement with the industry whereby the industry can in case of war be taken over and the production transferred to munitions of war. It would be interesting to know whether there is any agreement between the Government and the industry which is so efficiently protected by Government action, whereby the industry can actually be secured for the purposes of Government production in war time, and whether there is any limitation on the prices of munitions of war in order to prevent the taxpayer being defrauded by the protected position of this industry securing a very high price level for products of national importance in war time. I do not know whether there is any agreement, or whether it may be necessary in Committee to put in some clause dealing with that subject. The Opposition would be very glad to have any information upon that point.

115
Furthermore, could the noble Lord give us some information as to the monitions which would be involved in matter? It is not a question of national interest; it is a question for the information of the House, because we are asked to make permanent a temporary measure, and we want to know, broadly-speaking, what are the munitions of war involved in this industry. It is important to know that. The noble Lord only mentioned the War Office as being interested. I would like to know why the Air Ministry and the Admiralty are not interested. It would appear that most munitions of war are equally important for all three of the Services. If there is some peculiar production which only the Army is interested in perhaps the noble Lord would give us that information. To sum up we would like a little more information about the price-level; we would like to know what are the arrangements between the Government and the industry when the industry is taken over for war-time production; what are the munitions of war produced; and why the Air Ministry has been excluded from those interested in this matter.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I hope the Government will not give the noble Lord any information as to what use in time of war they propose to make of this measure. I think it is most important from the point of view of national security that such information should be kept inside the Government Department. I hope, therefore, that though the Government may give the noble Lord information as to prices, they will give him no information on the point I have mentioned.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I will try to answer a few of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Marley, asked me. He said I rather skated over the question of prices. I do not think I did, but I should like to repeat what I said:
"Whereas the average prices of all dyestuffs made in the United Kingdom in 1913 was about 1s. per lb., and in 1920 about 4s. 4d. per lb., at the end of 1928 it was 18. 6d. per lb. Since that date further reductions took place, but during 1932 prices rose again to the 1928 level."
I believe, as a matter of fact, it was 1s. 6d. per lb., and prices, I said, compared favourably with the prices in
116
foreign countries. As a matter of fact I did not give what the price was in Germany, for instance, where in 1913 it was 10d. per lb., and in 1931. 1s. 9d. per lb. so that the proportion of increase is considerably more in Germany than it is in this country.
LORD MARLEY: The point I tried to make was this. The noble Lord told us that in 1932 there had been a 50 per cent. rise in prices over 1913, which he did not explain. He then omitted to mention 1933 or the beginning of 1934. I cannot see why the statistics should be fifteen months old.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I think I am correct in saying that the prices now remain what they were in 1932.
LORD MARLEY: Fifty per cent. above 1913?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Yes.
LORD MARLEY: That is a substantial rise.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: It is, of course, a rise, but the point I tried to make was that it was not as substantial as the rise in certainly one foreign country.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Lord had not quoted the price in Germany.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: No, I omitted it partly to shorten my speech, but I have now given it to the noble Lord. I think the noble Lord asked what agreement there was to take over in connection with the manufacture of munitions of war. I am afraid I have not been provided with that information, and I am not in a position to tell the noble Lord. As regards the munitions involved, I am told that they include all high explosives. I do not know the reason why the War Office only is represented on the Committee which I mentioned, and not the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, but it is a fact, I think, that at present only the Board of Trade and the War Office send representatives to that Committee. I have answered to the best of my ability the questions put to me by the noble Lord opposite.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHOPS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Hours of employment
(2) On occasions of seasonal or exceptional pressure of work at any shop, young persons may, subject as hereinafter provided, and subject to the provisions of any other enactment, be employed about the business of the shop overtime, that is to say, in excess of the normal maximum working hours:
Provided that in the case of any shop—

(a) when in any year there have been six weeks (whether consecutive or not) in which any young person has been employed overtime about the business of the shop, no young parson shall be so employed during the remainder of that year;

(b) no young person shall be employed overtime about the business of the shop—

(i) in any year after he has been employed overtime about the business of that or any other shop for fifty working hours in that year;

(ii) in any week after he has been employed overtime about the business of that or any other shop for twelve working hours in that week.

THE EARL OF LISTOWELmoved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I trust your Lordships will not misconstrue our motives on these Benches for putting down several rather drastic Amendments for your consideration this afternoon. We welcome this measure as a whole, because it is a step in the direction of establishing humane conditions of labour for those boys and girls who are forced to find a living from the day they leave school. But we quarrel with it because, in our opinion, it does not go nearly far enough, and because it leaves many loopholes through which the young people can be subjected to cruel overwork. I should like to say that it is the common object of all the Amendments standing in my name to extend the very limited protection afforded by the present measure to young persons in the distributive trades.
118
If your Lordships would be so good as to glance at subsection (2) of Clause 1, you will observe that its aim is to provide for the working of overtime during periods of seasonal pressure. The actual effect of this subsection, if the Bill passes into law, will be that for nearly three years—that is to say, until the end of 1936—it will remain legally possible to employ boys and girls in the distributive trades under the age of eighteen for sixty-four hours per week during periods of seasonal pressure, and that afterwards, when the hours are reduced, it will still be possible to employ them for a sixty-hour week. We submit to your Lordships' serious consideration that ten hours a day represents too long a period for growing boys and girls who should, indeed, have more repose and leisure than adult workers. May I also point out that for adult workers the eight-hour day is already generally accepted as a maximum standard in civilised communities? Besides the injury to health and to mental development caused by such an extension of the working day, it is surely going to increase the burden of unemployment. The possibility of using employees for longer periods during certain portions of the year means that the employer does not engage more hands for this purpose. That is to say that our standing army of unemployed—and, my Lords, it is a standing army whether times are good or times are bad—will not be relieved when the good times come along and it is possible for the employer to recruit more workers.
The case of the distributive trades is specially interesting from this point of view. It cannot be said that employers in these trades are unable to afford more employees, because these trades were far less badly hit than any other branch of industry and commerce of the country by the great economic depression. They are, therefore far more able from the economic standpoint to draft more men, or women as the case may be, into their businesses when times are good. What I submit to your Lordships is that, both from the point of view of the welfare of these young workers and from the point of view of the state of employment in the country, it is not desirable to include this subsection in Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I fully appreciate the reason why the noble Earl wishes to omit this subsection, and I realise that the Amendments which he is going to move will not be moved as a reflection in any way upon the provisions of the Bill but merely because, in his opinion, the Bill does not go sufficiently far. As I explained in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, it is considered reasonable that special provision should be made to meet the periods of pressure which occur in the distributive trades; for example, at Christmas-time or at other holiday periods. In order to ensure that this overtime is limited to those periods of pressure and is not used to lengthen the working week during the year, it is provided that overtime shall be worked in six weeks only in any year, the weeks to be selected by the shopkeeper. As the noble Earl has argued, it may be that a working week of sixty hours after the transitional period of two years may be too long for young persons but, as I pointed out on Second Reading, the annual maximum of fifty hours—or twenty-four hours during the transitional period—is only possible for four weeks in any year. That means that any young person can work overtime for sixty-four hours during the two years and sixty hours after the transitional period for not more than four weeks in the whole year.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I say that I did not intend to imply that a young person could work sixty-four hours a week for the whole two years. Perhaps I did not express myself sufficiently clearly.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The omission of any provision for overtime would certainly make a great deal of difference to the traders who have, by their representations to the Home Office, stressed the need for elasticity to enable them to deal with certain periods of pressure. In view of the well-known intensity of this pressure at certain periods, particularly at Christmas, any narrower limit than that proposed would give rise to considerable difficulties. Further, having in view that the overtime provision will be of special benefit to the small shopkeepers who will have to adjust
120
their staffs according to the increased limitation of hours it is most important that no alteration should be made in the provision which restricts overtime. I therefore have to tell the noble Earl that I am unable to accept his Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There is one point raised by my noble friend behind me with which the noble Earl hardly dealt. My noble friend suggested that instead of an extension of hours in the case of workers already employed opportunity should be afforded on these occasions for the employment of outside people. The Post Office, for instance, during the Christmas season employ a number of temporary postmen in order to deal with the pressure of work. This subsection gives the employer the right, as we think, very much to overwork his staff instead of introducing new workers from outside during times of pressure. I do not quite see what is the objection to doing that.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: When we come to Clauses 5 and 6 there are special concessions made to such trades as catering and to garages that have periods of pressure. I would point out to the noble Lord in answer to the point he raised that the scope of the Bill is limited to the distributive trades.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I do not often agree with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, but on this occasion it does seem to me that we are going rather far in the extensions which are outlined in the Bill. Surely, any of us who had boys or girls going out to work would think a forty-eight-hour working week quite long enough for them if they were under eighteen years of age. How can they have leisure or time to complete their education if they are going to work for more than forty-eight hours? Indeed, I think in some cases forty-eight hours may be too long. Therefore I am not quite convinced by the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, when he says that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and that you have to make concessions to the traders. It may be that in certain trades substituted service is impossible and that they must have employees who are accustomed to a particular class of work, but surely he will not tell me that in all the distributive trades it is impossible to follow the example of the Post Office which, as the

121
noble Lord has pointed out, employs extra hands during the period of stress. I do most sincerely ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he cannot outline some concession which could be put forward on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I would like to point out to the noble Lord that the scope of the Bill is based on the recommendation of the Report of the Select Committee in 1931. In paragraph 225 of their Report they say:
"It is obvious that no sudden and immediate application of the new regulation would be demanded and that a period would be allowed for adjustment."
The noble Lord referred to the maximum number of hours worked by young persons and did not confine his remarks to the substance of the Amendment, which is overtime. I would like to point out to the noble Lord opposite that before the transitional period sixty hours is the maximum which can be worked by any young person, because in Clause 2 it is provided that instead of the weekly maximum overtime being twelve hours, as it will be after the transitional period, up to 1936 the maximum overtime will be eight hours per week, and, therefore the maximum that any young person can work will be sixty hours. Owing to the recommendations of the Select Committee upon which the scope of the Bill is based, I hope your Lordships will appreciate that in order to meet the demands placed
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment negatived accordingly. Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Temporary modification of limitation on hours imposed by Act.
2. Until the twenty-seventh day of December nineteen hundred and thirty-six
122
before the Home Office by the small shopkeeper it is impossible to make any greater provision for the restriction of overtime, and that there should be opportunity for the smaller shopkeepers to adjust their staffs before the general provisions, beginning from 1937, come into operation.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I would like to express my gratitude for the extremely clear account of the Government's attitude to the Amendment. At the same time I am very regretful that the noble Earl fails to meet either of the extremely important points that I made. In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, pointed out, it is a scandalous thing for young people under eighteen years of age to be worked for sixty hours a week, even for four weeks in the year. It is much too great a trial of strength for them to endure. In the second place, surely it is rather narrow-minded, even for employers in the catering trade, not to be willing to draft more hands into their business at times of seasonal pressure such as during the Christmas holidays, instead of overworking those who are in their employment at the moment. These points seem so important that I am bound to press them.
On Question, Whether subsection (2) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Chesham, L.

Clwyd, L.

Reading, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Cobham, L.

Chaplin, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Feversham, E.

Hailsham, V.

Gainford, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Halifax, V.

Hindlip, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Knutsford, V.

Marks, L.

Munster, E.

Mersey, V.

Rankeillour, L.

On slow, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Stanhope, E.

Amulree, L.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) [Teller.]

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Rhayader, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Snell, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L.

the foregoing provisions of this Act shall have effect as if—

(a) for any reference therein to forty-eight working hours there were substituted a reference to fifty-two working hours;

(b) for any reference to fifty working hours there were substituted a reference to twenty-four working hours;

123

(c) for any reference to twelve working hours there were substituted a reference to eight working hours.

THE EARL OF LISTOWELmoved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: I beg to draw your Lordships' attention for a moment to the very surprising provisions contained in Clause 2 of this Bill. This clause makes the entire Bill, supposing it is passed and becomes law, inoperative until the end of 1936; that is to say, its operation will be suspended for nearly three years. Is there any good reason why the limitation of hours and overtime proposed by this measure should be postponed for so long a period We should all agree that employers should have a right to be given a fair warning about any legislation that alters conditions in their businesses, in order that they may have time to adapt themselves comfortably and reasonably to any approaching change. We all appreciate that, and it is the custom of your Lordships' House to take that into consideration before you pass any measure that effects changes in the management of any business in the country. But the Select Committee on Shop Assistants, to which my noble friend referred a few moments ago, reported in 1932, and, as that Committee was set up in 1930, tradesmen and shopkeepers must be aware that this matter has been before Parliament for its serious consideration for a considerable period. Two years have elapsed since that Report appeared, and the Select Committee, which brought in a unanimous Report, was not in favour of any such delay in the operation of the Bill as we have embodied in Clause 2. In view of the length of time that these proposals have been before the public eye, and in view of the Report of the Select Committee, which did not favour a postponement on these grounds, the nine months which will elapse in any case before the Bill becomes law are an ample period of time for employers to adapt themselves to the special provisions which this measure contains.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I must condemn the remark of the noble Lord when he says that the Select Committee in 1931 recommended that the period when the forty-eight-hour week is to come
124
into operation should begin at once. They most emphatically laid down that there should be a time for adjustment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes. I did not mean that they reported in favour of the Bill coming into operation immediately. I simply meant that they did not report that the Bill should be delayed for the long period of nearly three years, which is the proposal in the present measure.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The argument applies in the case of this Amendment as in that of the last, inas much as it is felt, after very strong representations have been made to the Home Office, that the period which the noble Earl suggests is not sufficiently long, owing to limited staff, for the shopkeeper to adapt his conditions to the forty-eight-hour week. It is, therefore, felt by the Government that it would be indefensible as a permanent arrangement to lay down normal maximum hours for young persons which exceed forty-eight, but it is felt that a transitional period of two years is very desirable indeed. That applies particularly to the smaller shopkeeper. I hope that that emphasis which I place upon the requirements of the smaller shopkeeper will satisfy the noble Earl.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not really quite understand why the period of more than two years should be required. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain what these adjustments are. What adjustment has a small shopkeeper to make that necessitates his making arrangements for the next two-and-a-half years? I am simply ignorant on the subject. I cannot conceive it. If the employers made such strong representations they must have brought forward some arguments which showed how difficult these arrangements will be. It seems to us that the arrangements are perfectly simple, and in six months any employer could adjust his business in order to meet the new requirements.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I reinforce what has fallen from time noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby? We have here a Bill which says that young people under eighteen shall not be employed for more than forty-eight hours a week. The most that can happen to the shopkeeper, large or small, I take it, is that he may have

125
to engage more hands. He cannot claim that there is no unemployment, even among the younger people. There is a great deal of unemployment among the younger people. Therefore to come and ask this House to say that getting a few extra hands requires two and three-quarter years really seems to me to be playing with the House. Either the proposal of forty-eight hours is right or it is wrong. If it is right, I submit that six months after the passing of this Bill would give ample time for the shopkeepers to put their house in order.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I do not know whether the noble Lords who have just spoken appreciate the position of the small shopkeeper. Under existing legislation the small shopkeper has much difficulty in competing adequately with the growing tendency of multiple shops to spread in provincial towns, and the two-year period is the minimum within which the small shopkeeper can have a sufficient turnover and save a sufficient amount to employ the extra staff to which Lord Mount Temple referred. It is not possible in present circumstances for a small shopkeeper at will to employ numbers of young persons, as he desires. In fact, I have only this afternoon received intimation from the National Chamber of Trade that the transitional period of two years is not sufficiently long for the small shopkeeper in which to change the conditions.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I regret that my noble friend has not been able to meet our desires more adequately. The period in question is not, I am sorry to say, one of two years, but of nearly three, and I think that it must be very exceptional for your Lordships to pass a measure whose operation is suspended for so long a period. It strikes one that at bottom the trades-
men themselves are naturally anxious to stave off for as long as possible a law that will obviously to a certain extent encroach on their profits, and it is quite natural that the noble Earl should receive letters imploring him to postpone the operation of the measure to a still later date. But, as our concern is that these young people should receive this small measure of protection at the earliest possible opportunity, and as we believe that the tradesmen will not be injured if given an adequate notice—amounting, as it would be if this clause were omitted, to nine months—we must insist on this Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I ask the noble Earl if he would make a concession on the Report stage and abbreviate the period, not to six months, but anyhow to some period which is considerably shorter than that which is in the Bill?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Department which I represent mean to resist any advance that is made to lessen the transitional period below two years, and therefore I am afraid I do not think there would be any purpose in replying otherwise to the noble Earl.
LORD AMULIZEE: Might I suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that this is a matter surely for a compromise? As the Bill stands this provision will come into operation in two-and-half years' time—that is, two years from the 1st January, 1935. Surely, after the representations which have been made from various quarters of the House, the period of time might at least be reduced to twelve months?
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Hailsham, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Feversham, E.

Halifax, V.

Hindlip, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Mersey, V.

Marks, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanhope, E.

Cobham, L.

Templemore, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Desborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Knutsford, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) [Teller.]

Mount Temple, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Amulree, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Rhayader, L.

Gainford, L.

Marley, L. [Teller]

Snell, L.

Strabolgi

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly. Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Restrictions on night employment.
3.—(1) A young person who is employed about the business of a shop shall in every period of twenty-four hours between midday on one day and midday on the next day be allowed an interval of at least eleven consecutive hours which shall include the hours from ten o'clock in the evening until six o'clock in the morning:
Provided that the said interval of eleven consecutive hours need not include the hour between five and six o'clock in the morning in the case of male persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years who are employed in connection with the delivery of milk or bread daring that hour.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSEmoved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "include," to insert "the hour between ten and eleven o'clock in the evening in the case of persons employed in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises; or". The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment for the purpose of pointing out the hardship which this Bill brings to licensed traders in Scotland. We feel that there they are under special laws; they are regulated by Statute, and opening, closing, and trading generally are fixed by Statute. They are not free to close their premises when they want to, and they are under regulation by the justices who may, under the law, keep the houses open till eleven o'clock at night if they so wish. Therefore it seems to me a hardship that these people who are carrying on a legitimate trade under definite laws should have another law, so to speak, dovetailed into the licensing laws. It is quite true that in many places the closing hour is sometimes half-past nine and sometimes ten o'clock, but the feeling is that exemption should take place in regard to this particular trade as it is under special laws. These traders cater for the public. They are by law authorised to keep their premises open for the public, and I suggest to the
128
noble Earl in charge of the Bill that there is a case to be met in the Amendment which I have put down. I do not want to debate the matter at great length. It is well known, and I have no doubt it was brought before the Select Committee, but I do suggest that the special exemptions which took place in the Shops Act, 1912, should be continued here. I see no reason why these exemptions should not be continued to-day. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, after ("include") insert ("the hour between ten and eleven o'clock in the evening in the case of persons employed in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises; or").—(Lord Hutchison, of Montrose.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The object of Clause 3 is to secure for young persons that they shall have eleven consecutive hours of rest and that this period shall include the hours from ten o'clock in the evening until six o'clock in the morning as is applied to young persons in industry by existing legislation. That comes under the Act of 1920 with regard to the employment of women, young persons, and children. Certain exemptions are made, as the noble Lord has stated, to young persons who are engaged in the delivery of milk or bread where they can rise in the morning at five o'clock instead of six o'clock, and there are certain modifications in the case of theatres and places of entertainment. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to allow young persons employed in licensed premises to work up till eleven o'clock at night, and the noble Lord has urged that as under one Statute the licensing authorities may stipulate that licensed premises should be open till certain hours, therefore the persons employed in these premises should be employed up to the time of closing.
The noble Lord has said that there is no legislation which deals with the restriction of the employment of young persons in licensed premises, and that is very largely correct except for the fact that under Section 18 of the Children and

129
Young Persons Act a local authority may prohibit the employment of children in any specified occupation, and they have also the power to limit the number of hours worked by young persons; and if a local authority so desired they could, under existing legislation, specify that the hours of young persons should not be continued for the full period laid down in regard to licensed premises. The concession for the restaurants is made to enable British youths who are in training to become waiters and cooks, to gain the necessary experience. It has been urged that unless these young persons can be employed in restaurants where suppers are served after ten o'clock at right the success of the apprenticeship scheme for British boys will be jeopardised. But it is held that this concession is of a strictly limited character, and it is not considered desirable to extend it beyond these few shops which make a business of serving meals after ten o'clock, to which, as I have intimated to the noble Lord, rather exceptional circumstances apply which seem to render it justifiable that the general provision should be extended. I hope that after that explanation the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: In view of what the noble Earl has said I beg to withdraw my Amendment. I was not aware of the matters which he has pointed out to your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Special provisions as to the catering trade.
5.—(1) The occupier of any shop in which there is carried on the business of serving meals, intoxicating liquors, or refreshments to customers for consumption on the premises may, by exhibiting a notice to that effect, secure on not more than twelve occasions in any year that the provisions of this subsection will, during a period of two weeks specified in the notice, be applicable to that shop, and when such a notice has been duly exhibited in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner and at such time before the period therein specified as may be prescribed, then—

(a) a young person whose employment is wholly or mainly in connection with the said business, shall be deemed, for the purposes of Section one of this Act, not to be employed about the business of the shop in excess of the normal maximum working hours in either week of the
130
period specified in the notice, if he is employed about the business thereof neither for more than sixty working hours in either week nor for more than ninety-six hours throughout the period; and

(b) the provisions of the said Section one permitting employment overtime shall not apply during the period specified in the notice in relation to young persons whose employment is such as aforesaid.

(2) Until the twenty-seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, the last foregoing subsection shall have effect as if for the reference therein to ninety-six working hours there wore substituted a reference to one hundred and four working hours.
(3) Proviso (a) to subsection (2) of Section one of this Act shall not apply to the overtime employment of persons whose employment is wholly or mainly in connection with the business of serving meals, intoxicating liquors, or refreshments to customers for consumption on the premises, and, where that business is carried on in a department of a shop, being a shop in which other business is carried on, the said proviso shall apply as respects other departments of the shop as if the first-mentioned business were carried on in a separate shop.
(4) As respects male persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years whose employment is wholly or mainly in connection with the business of serving meals to customers for consumption on the premises the interval of at least eleven consecutive hours required by Section three of this Act need not include any time after ten o'clock in the evening during which they are wholly employed in connection with that business.
(5) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section one of the Shops Act, 1313, shall cease to have effect as respects young persons.
(6) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any person employed in a residential hotel who is not a shop assistant within the meaning of Section nineteen of the Shops Act, 1912, or, where the provisions of the Shops Act, 1913, apply, within the meaning of subsection (5) of Section one of that Act.
(7) In relation to any shop in which other business is carried on this section shall apply to a department in which there is carried on the business of serving meals, intoxicating liquors, or refreshments to customers for consumption on the premises as if that department were a separate shop.
THE EARL or FEVERSHAMmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "on not more than twelve occasions in any year." The noble Earl said: Clause 5 provides that a person engaged in the catering trade may average his hours over a period of a fortnight on twelve occasions in a calendar year. The object of this and the next Amendment standing in my

131
name is to provide for the case where the caterer wishes to average his hours over a fortnight commencing towards the end of December and ending in January, thus extending one of his twelve periods into the next calendar year. In such a case the fortnight counts towards the total of twelve in one year only, that is the year in which it commenced. Without these Amendments it might be held to count in both years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
>Page 4, line 14, leave out ("on not more than twelve occasions in any year").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMmoved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that after the provisions of this subsection have been applicable to any shop during twelve such periods beginning in any calendar year, the said provisions shall not again be applicable to the shop in that year."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL of FEVERSHAMmoved, in subsection (2), after "nineteen hundred and thirty-six," to insert "or, as respects any shop to which the provisions of the last foregoing subsection are applicable during a period comprising that date until the expiration of that period." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the fortnight which falls partly in the transitional period when the fortnightly hours are 104 and partly after the 27th December, 1936, when the hours are reduced to 96. The effect of the Amendment is that a fortnight commencing in the transitional period is regarded as being wholly in that period, and the 104 hours would therefore apply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, after ("thirty-six") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMmoved, in subsection (4), to leave out the words "after ten o'clock in the evening" and insert "between ten o'clock in the evening and one o'clock in the following morning." The noble Earl said: The
132
object of this subsection is to allow apprentice waiters and cooks over sixteen years of age to be employed after ten o'clock in the evening where suppers are served. As the clause stands, it would not allow youths whose spell of work commenced before eleven o'clock at night to be employed after one o'clock in the morning, in view of the fact that they must under Clause 3, "Restriction on night employment," have a rest period of eleven consecutive hours between midday on one clay and mid-day on the next day. On the other hand, it would allow those persons whose employment commenced at or after eleven o'clock at night, and who could thus have got in their period of eleven hours rest since mid-day, to be employed right through the night. That is not the intention of the subsection, and the object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the modification of the night-rest provisions applies only to the period between ten o'clock in the evening and one o'clock in the morning, and that in no circumstaces may these young persons be employed after one o'clock a.m.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("after ten o'clock in the evening") and insert ("between ten o'clock in the evening and one o'clock in the following morning.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSEhad given Notice that he would move, in subsection (6), after the words "shall not apply to", to insert "any person employed in any premises licensed for the retail of intoxicating liquor or." The noble Lord said: I presume that this Amendment is more or less covered by the same considerations which the noble Lord mentioned with regard to my previous Amendment?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Yes.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: Then I do not propose to move this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWELmoved to leave out Clause 5. The noble Earl said: May I ask the permission of your Lordships to take my Amendments as to Clauses 5 and 6 together, because the arguments are identical in each case, and as the hour is late I am sure your Lordships wish to deal with the Bill as rapidly as possible. If I may request the attention

133
of your Lordships for a moment to Clauses 5 and 6, you will see that they are roughly the same except that Clause 5 applies to the catering trades whereas Clause 6 applies to what amount to garages and aircraft works. I propose to omit these two clauses, and I hope that your Lordships will consider the advisability of this step. In the first place may I suggest to the noble Earl who represents the Government that these two clauses are extraordinarily involved and extraordinarily difficult to penetrate—that perhaps their wording is not as happy as it ought to be. It is like wandering in the selva oscura of Dante, and being quite unable to find a way out. I have wrestled with both these clauses for a long time. I therefore suggest that supposing your Lordships include these clauses in the Bill, my noble friend might consult with his advisers and endeavour to render the wording more intelligible.
So far as I can make out—and I hope my noble friend will correct me if I have misunderstood the gist of these clauses—they exempt young employees in the catering trades and in garages principally (for those are the principal trades in which exemption would occur) from the provisions of the Bill either by removing the restrictions in regard to overtime which apply to other workers in the catering trades, or by excluding those occupations completely from the ambit of the Bill. May I, for instance, draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (1) of Clause 5, which seems to maintain that by giving proper notice caterers may work their employees for hours which are longer than the overtime provided earlier in the Bill for other sections of the distributive trade. In subsection (1) of Clause 6 a working week of fifty-four hours is rendered legal for men in garages or in aircraft works, as distinct from the limit of forty-eight hours that the Bill is imposing upon the employment of young persons in other branches of the distributive trades.
We cannot agree that young persons employed in the catering trades or in garages, which are the two branches of the distributive trades affected by this clause, should not enjoy, to the full extent, the protection given by this Bill to young persons in other distributive occupations. Indeed we go further and maintain that domestic workers, office boys, boys who run errands and take messages
134
should be guaranteed by law against cruel overwork wherever they may be employed. And this makes our objection to the exemption of even a small section of those who are affected by this measure all the stronger. It is absurd that hours of work that are not allowed for adults in our basic industries should be permissible for young persons in certain occupations. I do not think it is a defensible position for anyone to maintain that because hotels and garages must be open by night as well as by day the working hours of those engaged in those places should be longer than those allowed to be worked in businesses carried on only in the daytime. That seems to be the essential distinction between the work in a garage or an hotel and the work in a shop or an ordinary retail store. We cannot see that there is any ground for the very large and extensive exemption from the protective restrictions that are embodied in the Bill, and we submit that to the noble Earl who represents the Government for his consideration.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF EEVERSHAM: I am in entire agreement with the noble Earl when he says that the drafting of Clauses 5 and 6 is of a somewhat complicated nature, and that it does mean long study to understand the many provisions which they contain. I am afraid the noble Earl has perhaps got somewhat confused among those provisions. In the first place I should like to point out that the provisions as to the catering trade under Clause 5 are not exactly similar to those in regard to garages under Clause 6. Young persons employed in catering and garages do not work over the period of a year any longer hours than young persons in the distributive trades generally. It is merely, as I explained on the Second Reading, to meet the need for elasticity that was particularly pressed by the representatives of the catering establishments and the garages in order to meet the peculiar conditions of their class of business. For that reason the question of allowing special latitude to these establishments has to be considered. It was not felt possible to admit the claim, on behalf of these trades, for longer hours, but certain special adjustments were proposed to be

135
allowed in Clauses 5 and 6, without however permitting any longer hours over the year as a whole.
In the case of the catering trade it was learned that there are periods of pressure confined to one week, such as the August Bank Holiday week, or to an athletic attraction, and that it was seldom that the periods of pressure were longer than one week. Therefore, under subsection (1) (a) of Clause 5 your Lordships will see that no young person is allowed to be employed for more than sixty hours in any one week or more than ninety-six hours during the period. That would mean that if the young person worked sixty hours in the Bank Holiday week he would only work thirty-six hours in the subsequent week. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will see that the provisions of this clause do not in any respect mean that young persons will throughout the period—a fortnightly period in the case of the catering trade or a three-weekly period in the case of garages—work for longer hours than the young persons in other distributive trades.
In the case of garages, which come under Clause 6, the overtime is not applicable to any other department than that defined in subsection (5). The noble Earl will appreciate that the intention of the clause is merely to allow garages, which are under pressure sometimes—in the case of certain garages for the whole twenty-four hours—to adjust their staff by a system of rotation whereby in certain weeks they can, if it is so desired, average more than forty-eight hours, but that in the case of the three-week period the hours will be "evened out." I hope with this explanation of the somewhat complicated clauses the noble Earl will appreciate that these exemptions are given only because of the very strong representations that were made by the catering trade and the garages and aircraft works. It was only after careful consideration that it was decided that young persons would not be put to any great burden, because they were limited in both provisions to a specified number of hours a week. In the case of garages no young person is allowed to work more than fifty-four hours a week whether with or without overtime. This has been done to meet the demands of these peculiar types of business, and I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his extremely illuminating account of the two clauses which, I must confess, I do net understand as profoundly as my noble friend. At the same time I think my general opinion that these clauses do exempt from certain protective restrictions employees in garages and the catering trade is correct. As the noble Earl himself said, there will be legally possible a sixty-hour week against which we on these Benches have continuously protested, even though the hours in subsequent weeks may be shortened in order to make up for this very strenuous period of labour, and the fifty-four-hour week similarly does apply to employees in garages—again a period of labour against which we on these Benches protest very strongly indeed. But seeing that your Lordships are not perhaps as sympathetic as we might desire towards this Amendment, I beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Special provisions as to the sale of accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles and cycles.
(3) A notice given under the last foregoing subsection as respects any shop may be withdrawn as from the end of any week by the occupier of the shop in such manner, at such time before the withdrawal takes effect and in such form as may be prescribed.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "as from the end of any week by the occupier of the shop in such manner, at such time before the withdrawal takes effect and in such form "and to insert" by the occupier of the shop in such manner, in such form, and subject to such conditions." The noble Earl said: The special arrangements for garages are that an owner of a garage may elect to average his hours over a period of three weeks by giving notice to the local authority. Subsection (2) provides for the withdrawal of this notice in any week by a garage owner who desires either to abandon the averaging system or to alter the hours specified in his notice. The Amendment omits the reference to "any week" which is thought to afford an undesirable amount of latitude and it

137
further gives the Home Secretary the necessary power to prescribe the conditions under which such notices should be withdrawn by the proprietor of a garage or similar business.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, leave out from ("withdrawn") to ("as") in line 22 and insert ("by the occupier of the shop in such manner, in such form, and subject to such conditions").—(The Earl of Fecersham.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Records.
7.—(1) The occupier of any shop about the business of which young persons are employed shall in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner keep a record of the hours worked by, and of the intervals allowed for meals to, every young person employed about the business of the shop, and particulars of all employment overtime shall be separately entered in the record:
Provided that if the occupier of any shop keeps exhibited in the prescribed manner in the shop or in any department thereof notices in the prescribed form specifying the daily hours to be worked by, and intervals for rest and meals to be allowed to, young persons employed abut the business of the shop or of the department, as the case may be, he need only enter in the said record particulars of employment overtime and the hours, if any, during which any such persons as aforesaid are employed about the business of the shop, or department outside the daily hours so specified.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMmoved to leave out all words after "record" in the proviso in subsection (1) and insert:
"any time during which any such person is employed about the business of the shop or department outside the daily hours so specified or during the intervals so specified, so, however, that any such time shall be entered as, and shall be deemed to be, overtime, unless the time was worked by that person in lieu of time not worked by him during the same week within the specified daily hours, and both the time not so worked and the time worked in lieu thereof are entered in the record."
The noble Earl said: This clause provides for records to be kept by shopkeepers. It is provided that a shopkeeper may, if he chooses, instead of keeping a record of the hours worked by his young persons, exhibit a notice in the shop specifying their daily hours. The clause as it stands does not make it clear that where a person chooses to specify the daily hours in a notice he must keep to the hours specified, unless he allows his
138
young persons time off in lieu of any hours worked outside the specified hours. The amended words provide that any time worked outside the specified daily hours shall be counted as overtime unless the young person receives time off in lieu thereof, and that the shopkeeper shall enter in the records both the period of employment outside the specified hours and the period of time off that the young person was given.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, leave out from ("record") to the end, of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Special provision as to theatres.
8. The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to the employment of persons in or about a theatre except in relation to young persons employed wholly or mainly m connection with any retail trade or business carried on in the theatre; and the said provisions shall, in their application to such young persons, be subject to the modification that, in the case of a person between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years employed in a theatre where a performance is taking place which begins before and ends after ten o'clock in the evening, the interval of at least eleven consecutive hours rettuired by Section three of this Act need not include any time between ten o'clock in the evening and the time at which the performance ends.
LORD CHESHAMmoved, before "the time at which the performance ends," to insert "thirty minutes after." The noble Lord said: As the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, is unable to be here, I beg to move this Amendment which stands on the Paper in his name. The object is fairly obvious. It is to extend the time from the end of the performance for a further thirty minutes to the actual clearance of the theatre both of the performers and the audience. During that time, I understand, there is carried on a certain amount of the trading to which reference is made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, after ("and") insert ("thirty minutes after"). — (Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The effect of this Amendment would be to exempt from this clause certain persons employed in retail trade carried on in the theatre—for example, in a theatre bar, or in the

139
caféat a cinema, or persons wholly or mainly employed in the sale of chocolates, tobacco, or refreshments—and to allow them to continue sales for thirty minutes after the performance ends. At present it is provided that no person shall sell such articles after the termination of the performance, and I do not think, in fact, that any attempt would be made to prohibit sales during a very short period afterwards, say only five or six minutes. Apart from that, the Home Office understand that what the representatives of the theatres were mainly anxious to ensure was that there should be no prohibition of sales during the last interval if that occurred or continued after ten o'clock. There appears to be no necessity for permitting employment as long as half an hour after the close of the performance. Therefore, as we do not believe that this provision will be enforced as the curtain falls, I would suggest that the noble Lord might reconsider the matter and, if necessary, propose a shorter period than that named in the present Amendment; but I do not think that any Amendment is necessary.
LORD CHESHAM: After hearing the reply of the noble Earl I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Provisions as to sanitary or other arrangements in shops.
(4) In every shop there shall be provided and maintained suitable and sufficient washing facilities available for the use of persons employed in or about the shop.
(5) Where persons employed about the business of a shop take any meals in the shop, there shall be provided and maintained suitable and sufficient facilities for the taking of those meals.
(6) If it appears to the authority whose duty it is to enforce any provision of this section that there has been, in the case of any shop, a contravention of that provision, the authority shall, by notice served on the owner or occupier of the shop, require him to take, within such time as may be limited by the notice, such action as may be specified in the notice for the purpose of securing compliance with the said provision, and if any person served with such a notice fails to comply with the requirements thereof he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues:
Provided that it shall be a defence to any proceedings under this subsection to prove that there was no contravention of the provisions of this section, or that the requirements of any such notice as aforesaid were, within a reasonable time after service of the notice, complied with in so far as they were necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this section.
LORD CHESHAMmoved to leave out subsection (4) and insert:
"(4) There shall be provided and maintained conveniently available for the use of persons employed in or about any shop suitable and sufficient washing facilities."
The noble Lord said: My object in moving this Amendment is to ascertain if it is considered absolutely essential to have washing facilities actually in every shop. That is a condition which it might be very difficult to enforce in many small shops, and in the case of a great many people it would be quite adequate if, as is suggested in this Amendment, there were facilities reasonably conveniently available though not necessarily actually in the shop. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The effect of this Amendment would be to bring this subsection dealing with washing facilities into line with the subsection relating to the provision of sanitary conveniences. It is felt that the circumstances are not parallel. In the case of sanitary conveniences an obligation to instal a convenience in every shop would be a very serious matter, but in the case of washing facilities it should be possible, no matter how small the shop, to provide facilities. It would be quite easy to provide a jug of water and a basin on the premises. It would be evading the provisions directed to the welfare and health of employees in shops if proprietors were permitted to have washing facilities "conveniently available" because that might mean fifty or a hundred yards distance from the shop. In the circumstances I think it would be better to insist on the facilities being on the premises.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAMmoved, in subsection (5), after the first "shop," to insert "are required or permitted by their

141
employer to." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of people who take their meals in shops. The suggestion is that a person who wishes to do that should at least first obtain the sanction of his employer to do so. In many cases the employer does not know whether his workpeople take their meals in the shop or not. It is rather hard that an employer should be compelled to make certain provisions under this Bill when he does not really know that his met are there. If they can prove that they are there for meals I understand that he can be compelled to make these provisions.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 14, after the first ("shop") insert ("are required or permitted by their employer to").—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I understand that the purpose of this Amendment is to protect the employer from being made responsible for failure to provide necessary facilities in the shop in those cases where his employees may take their meals without his consent or knowledge. It is hardly conceivable that employees can successfully insist on taking their meals in the shop if forbidden by the employer so to do, or that they can do so without his knowledge. Every employer is master of his own shop, and if he is not prepared to allow meals to be taken in his shop he can take the necessary steps to prevent it. There are numerous Orders in force under the Factory Acts requiring the occupier or employer to provide facilities for taking meals, and there is no limitation in such Orders of the kind suggested in the Amendment. Further, the Amendment might be used as a clock for attempts to evade responsibilities. For example, a shop-keeper might maintain that he need not provide facilities on the ground that, although his staff chose to take meals in the shop, he had not given them any "permission" to do so. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is wise to leave the clause as it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAMmoved, in subsection (6), after "occurs or continues," to insert "after conviction therefore" The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is really to get information as to whether if a fine is inflicted it can be made retrospective. Exactly
142
what I mean is this. Supposing the notice of improvements required had expired, there might be a period of a month before the case could come on in Court. So far as I can see, under this Bill, supposing the Court gave its decision against the owner of the property or employer, the Court might easily say that for the period between the expiry of the notice and the time of hearing the owner is liable for a maximum of £5 for every day. I would also like to know if it is possible for magistrates in a case like that—I understand they come up frequently in magistrate's courts—to appoint a time during which the improvements required can be done before any fine starts; or does it start from the moment when the conviction is made?
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 28, at end, insert ("after conviction therefor").—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The effect of the clause as it stands is that a person who fails to comply with the notice is liable, on conviction, to a cumulative penalty of£5 for every day on which he makes default, between the expiry of the period named in the notice and the laying of the information. If after conviction he still refuses to comply with the notice, further proceedings can be taken and he will again be liable to a cumulative fine for the period between the first conviction and the laying of the second information. If, as I gather from the noble Lord, the object of the Amendment is to provide that on first conviction the defendants shall be liable to a single penalty of£5 only, and not to a cumulative penalty, and that the cumulative penalty shall only apply in the case of a second conviction for the same offence, I do not think that the single penalty of would be sufficient in a, case where the occupier had been in default for some considerable time after the notice had expired. Further, it is doubtful whether the Amendment as now drafted would really have the effect that is intended. It is certainly not clear that the conviction referred to in the Amendment is the conviction in respect of the original default and not the further conviction which would be necessary before the occupier could be fined for the continuance of the default. I think that in any case the answer is that the matter of penalty can be left to the Courts to adjust in the

143
circumstances of each particular case. I hope that that explanation has met the noble Lord.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not quite clear about it yet, but in withdrawing my Amendment I would like to ask the Government, if it be possible, to consider a little further the desirability of making it a little bit clearer in the actual words of the clause.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: If the noble Lord agrees we will, between now and the Report stage, see if there is any confusion in the clause as it now stands, and deal with it on the next occasion, if necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Enforcement.
12.—(1) Sections thirteen and fourteen of the Shops Act, 1912, which relate to the enforcement of that Act, shall apply with respect to the provisions of this Act as they apply with respect to the provisions of that Act, and in the said sections the word "shop" shall, in their application with respect to the provisions of this Act, have the same meaning as in this Act:
Provided that—

(a) the said sections shall not apply with respect to the provisions of this Act in their application to street trading; and

(b) the provisions of this Act relating to ventilation and temperature of shops, and to sanitary accommodation, shall not be enforceable by local authorities under the provisions of the Shops Act, 1912, but this proviso shall be without prejudice to the powers and duties of inspectors appointed under that Act who shall take note of, and if necessary report to the sanitary authority for the district, any contravention of the said provisions of this Act.

(3) It shall be the duty of the sanitary authority for every district as part of their duties under the Public Health Acts to enforce the provisions of this Act relating to ventilation and temperature of shops, and to sanitary accommodation, and any inspector appointed by such an authority shall in relation to those provisions be deemed to be an inspector appointed under the Shops Act, 1912.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMmoved, in subsection (1), after "this Act," immediately preceding the provisos, to insert "and shall, in relation to the provisions of this Act which apply to retail trade or business carried on in any place not
144
being a shop, include a reference to any such place." The noble Earl said: Clause 12 applies Sections 13 and 14 of the Shops Act, 1912, which provide for enforcement by local authorities, to the provisions of the Bill, and also provides that the word "shop" shall for the purposes of enforcement have the extended meaning set out in the definition in Clause 14; that is, the definition shall include any wholesale shop and certain warehouses as defined. Under Clause 4 certain provisions of the Bill are applied to retail trade carried on "in any place not being a shop," and it is necessary for purposes of enforcement that local authorities should have the same powers in regard to these places as they have in regard to shops. The Amendment accordingly provides that these sections shall apply to these places. It is practically a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, at end insert ("and shall, in relation to the provisions of this Act which apply to retail trade or business carried on in any place net being a shop, include a reference to any such place").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMmoved, in proviso (b), in subsection (1), to leave out "accommodation" and insert "conveniences." The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 20, leave out ("accommodation") and insert ("conveniences").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMmoved, in subsection (3), after "accommodation," to insert "conveniences." The noble Earl said: This is a manuscript Amendment, and is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, after ("accommodation") insert ("conveniences").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
LORD CHESHAMmoved to insert the following new clause after Clause 13:
Amendment of Section 17 of the Shops Act, 1912.
".—(1) The following subsection shall be added to Section seventeen of the Shops

145
Act, 1912 (which gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations).
(2) Any regulations made under this section shall be fail before both Houses of Parliament, forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or the making of a near regulation."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment with which I think your Lordships are familiar. We have had it raised one or twice in various Bills. Its object is to make it necessary for regulations under the Shops Act, 1912, to come before both Houses of Parliament before they are sanctioned.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The matters which have to be prescribed under the Bill relate to notices to be exhibited by persons in the catering trade, notices to be given to the local authority by owners of garages, and records of hours worked and notices of hours. There does not appear to be any necessity to lay regulations of this character before Parliament. But the noble Lord will appreciate that it has been the practice that such regulations should be laid before Parliament. I would like to emphasise, however, that this Amendment applies not only to the present Bill but it would also apply to regulations made under the Shops Act, 1912, which go further than the present Bill. It rests with the Lord Chairman to say whether it would be in order to pass such an Amendment correcting a former Act of Parliament.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The question of order is a matter for your Lordships' House.
LORD CHESHAM: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame, in whose name the Amendment stands, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

SUPPLY OF WATER IN BULK (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Supply of water in bulk.
(4) For the purpose of giving or taking a supply of water in pursuance of an agreement made under this Act, statutory water undertakers may exercise either within or beyond their limits of supply any of the powers which, under Sections twenty-eight to thirty-four of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (which relate to the breaking up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes) are exercisable by undertakers within the limits of a special Act for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of the district included within those limits:
Provided that the consent of the persons under whose control or management a street or bridge is shall be required to the opening or breaking up thereof, but that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether or not consent, is unreasonably withheld shall be decided by the Minister.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDmoved to insert the following proviso at the end of subsection (4):
"Provided also that where the undertakers propose to open or break up any length of a street which forms a level crossing or crosses over or under a railway or works of a railway company or railway committee and the railway company or committee are not the persons having the control and management of that length of the street, the undertakers shall give the like notice to the railway company or railway committee as they are required by Section 30 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, to give to the persons under whose control or management the street is, and if and in so far as the proposed opening or breaking up of the street would be likely to affect the structure of any bridge or other works belonging to the company or committee the undertakers shall carry out their proposals under the superintendence and to the reasonable satisfaction of the engineer of the company or committee in accordance with plans to be submitted to and approved by him, and any dispute or difference which may arise between the undertakers and the company or committee shall be referred to the arbitration of an engineer to be appointed on the application of either party by the President of the Institution Of Civil Engineers."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment, although put forward by the railway companies, is solely in the interests of public safety, and therefore I hope it will be approved by the promoters of the Bill and also by the

147
Minister of Health. As was mentioned on the Second Reading, there are a number of matters in respect of which railway companies claim protection in conditions affecting the laying of water pipes under Private Acts, but after full consideration of the circumstances in which this Bill is brought forward, they have decided that their Amendment is essential for the safe working of the railways, which also spells the safety of the public. The proposed Amendment will ensure that, where pipes are laid for the purpose of Clause 1 in roads crossing over or under railways or which form part of level crossings, the work shall be carried out on plans approved by the railway company's engineers and under his supervision and in such manner as not to affect the structure or safety of the railway; and any difference of opinion will be settled by an engineer to be appointed by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers. This Amendment goes a long way to satisfy what the railway companies ask for, and they have requested me to assure your Lordships of their appreciation of the way in which it has been received.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 21, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Knutsford.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Ministry see no objection to this proviso.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, this is a useful Amendment. As my noble friend has stated, it protects not only the railway companies but also the public, and from that point of view I think your Lordship will be well advised in accepting it.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I need detain your Lordships for a few minutes only. The object of the Bill is to correct a defect in one section of the Solicitors Act, 1932. Section 46 of that Act imposes a
148
penalty upon any person not having in force a certificate authorising him to practise as a solicitor, who wilfully pretends to be or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is qualified or recognised by the law as qualified to act as a solicitor. This is a very important provision. It is not merely that those who act on behalf of litigants ought to have attained to a certain knowledge and skill in the law. Solicitors have this qualification, but they are also subject to the discipline of the Law Society and the Judges. Litigants generally, and particularly poor and ignorant litigants, would often be the victims of imposture if it were not for this section. They might be persuaded by unqualified persons subject to no such discipline to employ them in litigation but for the proper vigilance of the Law Society in taking proceedings under the section in cases where unauthorised persons are discovered practising as solicitors.
It was while attempting to exercise this vigilance that the Law Society discovered a defect in the section. In a case of the Law Society versus United Service Bureau Limited, reported in The Times newspaper on November 10 last, the Court held that a corporation or a limited company could not be guilty of an offence under this section, inasmuch as the section must be held to contemplate a person who might or could have in force a practising certificate as a solicitor, and it was clear that a corporate body or company could not be admitted as a solicitor. It therefore followed as a result of this decision that the Solicitors Act could be evaded by any person or persons who formed themselves into a company for the purpose. Very great public evil would arise from such a proceeding. The Bill is designed to forbid the doing by a body corporate of any act which, by Section 46, would be forbidden if it were done by an individual. It only contains two clauses which carry out that purpose.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRADE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peel, I beg to ask the Question standing in his name.
[The Question was as follows:—To ask His Majesty's Government (1) whether they will give the full names and descriptions of the State economic organisations referred to in Article 5 of the Temporary Commercial Agreement, Russia (No. 1), 1934; (2) whether an agreement entered into with the said organisations must be countersigned by persons specially authorised, or whether the signature of the Trade Representative or either of his deputies will be sufficient to secure the responsibility of the Soviet Government.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I must apologise to the House that when the Trade Agreement was discussed in your Lordships' House last week I was not sufficiently acquainted with the details of Article 5 to make the matter quite clear to your Lordships. In my own defence, perhaps, I might say that that Article of the Agreement was somewhat outside the terms of the two Motions on the Paper, but none the less I regret that I was unable to make the position clear at that time. I am, therefore, all the more grateful to my noble friends, Lord Peel and Lord Mount Temple, for giving me this opportunity.
Your Lordships are, of course, aware that it is impossible to sue the diplomatic representative of a foreign Power in a British Court, owing to his diplomatic immunity. The Soviet Government realise that as they are the trading power for trade with the U.S.S.R. it would raise considerable difficulties if their Trade Representative, who has diplomatic immunity under this Agreement, could not be sued before a British Court, and therefore they were prepared to undertake to be responsible for all trade agreements with the Soviet Government, on condition that those agreements were countersigned by their Trade Representatives and that those Trade Representatives became responsible. There were two classes of cases. One was the case where the contract is made direct with the Trade Representative or his deputies, and
150
the second where a contract was made with one of those State economic organisations to which the first part of my noble friend's Question refers. In either case the contract must be signed by the Trade Representative or one of his deputies, and it must be countersigned by the Special Representative, who is referred to in the Agreement. In other words, the contract has to be signed by two people. Of course it is quite a common commercial procedure that a cheque or other document has to be countersigned by two representatives of a company or organisation, and so the Soviet Government said that these contracts must be signed and countersigned by these two individuals. The Special Representative will actually be resident in this country, and he will be easily available for countersigning any contract.
As regards the first part of my noble friend's question, I should find considerable difficulty in giving an exhaustive list of the organisations to which Lord Peel refers. Trade in the U.S.S.R. is to some extent in the hands of semi-independent organisations, although actually they were set up under the authority of the U.S.S.R. Government and are under their control, but none the less the Government are not responsible for individual transactions. There are, for example, semi-independent organisations such as Exportkleb, which deals with the export of grain, and Exportles, which deals with the export of timber, and in addition there are trade organisations outside the U.S.S.R., such as Arcos, which is a British company.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? Then, I understand this is the position, that anybody trading from this country with Russian organisations do so at their peril unless (a) the contract is countersigned by the Trade Representative and (b) by the Special Representative as well. Is that the position?
EARL STANHOPE: That is correct. I was going into it further. My noble friend will see that of course these semi-independent organisations can be sued in the courts of law in the same way as an ordinary company, but they will not get behind them the guarantee of the Soviet Government unless a contract is signed by the Trade Representative or one of his deputies and countersigned by

151
the other individual. Therefore, my noble friend will see that there is no advantage whatever in publishing a list of names of these semi-independent organisations. It will give no security to anybody doing trade with them that their names are or are not published in the Board of Trade Journal; but what will be published in the Board of Trade Journal is the names of the Soviet Trade Representative and his two deputies and the individual who will countersign the contracts. All that anybody trading with
152
these organisations will have to do is to ensure that the contract is countersigned by these individuals, and to see that these are the names which have appeared in the Board of Trade Journal. I hope I have made the situation clear to my noble friend.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I have to thank the noble Earl for his very clear statement.
House adjourned at six minutes before seven o'clock.