Lords Sitting of 14 June 1938

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsuntide Recess, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the woolsack.
The Marquess of Ailsa—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CREWE CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
RADCLIFFE FARNWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
ROMFORD GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
REDCAR CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
OSSETT CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

SPAIN: BOMBING OF BRITISH SHIPS.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make respecting the recent bombing of British ships.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, on May 31 His Majesty's Government made representations to the Burgos Authorities by way of protest against damage suffered by British ships in or adjacent to Spanish Government ports. In reply to these representations the Burgos Authorities stated on June 5 that they deplored the loss of life that had occurred at Valencia and other ports, and that it was in conflict with their policy that their aviators should single out British ships for attack. British ships were, however, liable to mingle with ships
916
of other nationalities, and where they lay in the neighbourhood of military objectives the task of discrimination between ships and military objectives was rendered at times impossible. They were unable to renounce the use of the air arm inasmuch as the prolongation of the war was due to the importation of military supplies which they declared were being carried by British and other ships. If by "military supplies" the Burgos Authorities mean arms and munitions, it may be recalled that by strict adherence to the Non-Intervention Agreement His Majesty's Government have taken drastic steps to ensure that no British ships carry arms into any port in Spain, and that they have passed legislation to this end. The Burgos Authorities have been invited to furnish His Majesty's Government with any evidence in their possession on this point, but no evidence has yet been produced, except in one case, which is at present sub judice, to show that there has been any contravention of the law by British ships.
Since the receipt of the communication to which I have referred, I regret to say that air bombardments have continued, resulting in the loss of several lives and further damage to ships. Altogether since the middle of April, twenty-two British ships have been involved in air attacks on Spanish ports. Of these ships eleven have been sunk or seriously damaged, and in several cases the attack appears to have been deliberate. Faced with a situation which has arisen out of the development of military aircraft and is without precedent in previous experience, His Majesty's Government have given earnest consideration to the question of what action, if any, they could take which would be likely to give protection to British shipping without reversing their declared policy of non-intervention.
I will tell the House frankly some of the difficulties that we have encountered. These attacks take place in Spanish ports which are the scene of military operations, and the problem is thus totally different from that with which we were faced last summer, which was a question of stopping piracy by submarines on the high seas, effectively countered by the action of His Majesty's ships. The present attacks are made by aircraft while the shipping is in port and consequently protection could only be afforded by stationing anti-aircraft guns on land, or war-

917
ships in or near the port. Since it is impossible to tell whether any aeroplane is intending to attack a British ship until the attack is delivered, and since to wait until the attack had been delivered would be to deprive the defence of any useful effect, it follows that fire would have to be opened on all approaching aircraft. Action of this kind would obviously constitute participation in the defence of the port and would amount to direct intervention in the civil war.
His Majesty's Government have also considered retaliatory action of various kinds but, as at present advised, they are not prepared to embark on such measures which, apart from their inherent disadvantages, cannot be relied upon to achieve their object. Two proposals have been made which, if found practicable, may go some way in the desired direction. The first is for the provision of safety zones for shipping in certain harbours, and, although this proposal presents considerable difficulties, it is being actively investigated. The second proposal was received by His Majesty's Government last Saturday from the Burgos Authorities, and is to the effect that a port in Spanish Government territory should be selected outside the zone of military operations for the use of British merchant ships, which could enter and leave it unhindered. The Burgos Authorities desire to make it a condition that the part should not be used for the purpose of supplying the Spanish Government with munitions or certain other commodities, and they therefore propose the appointment of international commissioners who would be in a position to guarantee that no such commodities were carried in ships using the port. The selection of such a port or ports would mean that British ships entering it under these conditions would be free from the risk of bombardment. There are certain obvious difficulties about this suggestion. For one thing it depends upon an agreed understanding of what the commodities in question should be, while its effectiveness would clearly be impaired unless ports in both portions of the territory held by the Spanish Government were allotted for the purpose indicated.
Apart from these specific proposals for safety zones and the establishment of a neutral port or ports, the result of the further and detailed examination made by His Majesty's Government has been to show that, unless this country is prepared
918
to take an active part in the hostilities, effective protection cannot be guaranteed to ships trading with ports in the war zone while they are in territorial waters. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government they would not be justified in recommending such a course which might well result in the spread of the conflict far beyond its present limits. They must therefore repeat the warning they have already given to British shipping on the 28th and 29th November last that, while they will continue to afford protection as hitherto to ships on the high seas, ships entering ports which are liable at any time to be the object of military operations and attack must do so at their own risk. At the same time it is impossible that attacks, frequently involving loss of life and sometimes apparently deliberate, on British ships, can be repeated without serious injury to the friendly relations which the Burgos Authorities have declared they desire to maintain with the British Government.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, there would be no advantage in trying to discuss the statement made by the noble Viscount now, but when we have had an opportunity of reading it, it may be necessary for us to ask for some discussion on the matter.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, this is a useful little Bill intended to improve the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the Education Act, 1921, in a variety of ways in regard to proceedings before juvenile courts. These Amendments are the result of experience of the working of these Acts in regard to juvenile courts. The Bill received unanimous approval from all quarters in another place. I should like, if I may, to pay a tribute to the excellent work done by these juvenile courts. They are recent institutions and they have well justified themselves. Broadly speaking, the Bill may be said to have three objects. The first is to make more uniform the powers of juvenile courts in dealing with the various groups of boys and girls who come before them. The second is to

919
amend certain provisions of the Education Act, 1921, relating to what may be described as the cases of truant children. As the result of rules made by the Lord Chancellor the cases of truant children have been assigned as from May I last to juvenile courts to deal with. The effect of the amendment of the Act is to increase the flexibility of the powers of the juvenile courts with regard to these children. The third object is to modify the existing law as to the constitution of juvenile courts in the Metropolitan Police Court area.
The Bill refers to children and young persons. A child under the Bill, as under the parent Act, the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, means a child under fourteen years of age. A young person is a person between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. As to the first object, the position at the present time is that juvenile courts have, generally speaking, the power to make one of three orders in respect of the boys and girls who come before them. First of all, there are the probation order and the supervision order. If a child or young person brought before a juvenile court charged with an offence against the law is found to have committed that offence, the court may make an order committing the child to the care of a probation officer or some other person named by the court. That is called a probation order. Where, however, the child is not charged with any breach of the law but comes before the court because of the need of care and protection or because he is beyond control, the court may make what is called a supervision order. The court may commit a boy or girl to the care of a fit person who is willing to take the responsibility of looking after the child for a certain number of years. The local authority may become a fit person for the purpose of the Bill. When a child is committed to a local authority as a fit person, it is the duty of the local authority, by rules made under the Act of 1933, to board out the child with foster parents. The third class of order the court may make is an order committing the child to an approved school, commonly known as a Home Office school.
These three measures of treatment are, however, not available to all the groups of children who come before the juvenile
920
court. The Bill refers in Clause 1 to refractory children and young persons. When a parent or guardian brings before the court a child who is beyond control—in other words, is a refractory child—the court may do one of two things. It may put the child under a supervision order or it may send the child to an approved school. It has been found in practice that it would be a good thing if, instead of having these two alternatives, the courts were able to commit the child or young person to the care of a fit person. This is the object of Clause 1 of the Bill.
The next class of case which comes within this category comprises those in regard to whom probation orders or supervision orders are made. When a court makes a probation order, it has power to attach conditions which may be appropriate in the case of a particular child. When it makes a supervision order it has no power to atttach any conditions whatsoever. It has been found by these courts and by other persons with practical experience of this work that it would be useful and advantageous if, in making a supervision order, the court had similar power to attach conditions appropriate to the particular case. The choice of the conditions will naturally depend on the circumstances of the particular case. It may, for example, be advisable to require a boy or girl to give up undesirable companions, or to be indoors by a certain hour in the evening, or to reside for a short time in a home or hostel, or for a given period with temporary foster parents selected by the court. This purpose of the Bill is carried out by Clause 4, which also contains a number of detailed provisions relating to the variation and revocation of supervision orders.
So much for the first object of the Bill. The second object of the Bill is to amend certain sections of the Education Act, 1921, dealing with truant children. At present, as the law stands, when proceedings are taken after non-compliance with a school attendance order the court can do one of two things: it can commit the child to the care of a fit person or send it to an approved school. There is no power to employ the other method of placing the child under the supervision of a probation officer or some other person appointed by the court. It is agreed on all hands that it is desirable

921
that the court should have this further power, and this power is conferred by Clause 3 (1). The amendment would thus enable a court to take a milder and more reasonable view of truancy. Instead of the somewhat drastic alternative of sending a child to an approved school or placing him with a fit person, the court may adopt the milder course of placing him under a supervision order.
This clause also contains two further useful provisions intended to increase the power of the juvenile courts in dealing with these truant children. If the court is not in a position at the first hearing to give a final decision on what to do with the child, it is empowered under Clause 3 (2) to order the child to be detained in a place of safety—which is often a remand home. This would enable further information to be collected with regard to the child and make it possible to obtain a medical or psychological report on the child during the period when it was in the remand home. The court would thus be in a better position, having this information before it, to come to a decision on what to do with the child. Lastly, Clause 3 (3) enables the court to secure the physical presence of the child before it. At present a court issues a summons to the parent or guardian to produce the child, but if he does not do so and shows no reasonable cause, all the court can do is to impose a fine on the parent or guardian. It has no power to get the child before the court. It is undesirable that this should be so, and it is undesirable that the court, as sometimes happens, should be obliged to come to a decision about the child without having seen him. This subsection amends that defect.
In addition, some extension of existing powers and certain improvements in procedure are contained in Clauses 2, 5 and 6 of the Bill. Clause 2, for example, enables the court to replace a fit person order by a supervision order. I may remind your Lordships that a fit person order is an order committing the child to the custody of a fit person, and a local authority may be a fit person. It sometimes happens that the conditions alter: there has been, perhaps, an improvement in the home circumstances and the court has found it desirable that the child should return to its parents. That cannot be done without revoking the fit person order. But it is the experience of the juvenile courts and of others that in
922
some of these cases the friendly supervision of a probation officer and the help which he can give both to the child and to the parents would be valuable. The clause gives the court power to provide this help by making a supervision order.
Clause 5 contains some improvements in procedure which will be found useful by the court. Where a court has found, for example, that the child or young person is in need of care and protection, or is beyond the control of his parent or guardian, or is refractory, and the hearing is then adjourned, the court may make a record of that finding. The object of Clause 5 is to enable that finding to be used in evidence at a subsequent hearing of the case in order to save the time of the court and the attendance of witnesses. Clause 6 regularises certain practices which are not infrequently followed at present in respect of these children who have been committed to a remand home. If for example a child is committed to a remand home and has to appear on a certain day, and meanwhile falls ill or meets with an accident and is physically unable to attend, then the court has power to adjourn the date of attendance. The next provision of this clause is to regularise the legal position of the custody of children who have been committed to a remand home or place of safety, and it is necessary or desirable that the child should have some medical attention, and it may be desirable that the child should attend some hospital or clinic. This clause enables the child to attend hospital or clinic without further provision.
The third main object of the Bill is to modify the present law as to the constitution of juvenile courts in the Metropolitan Police Court area. As the law stands these courts are required to be presided over by a Metropolitan Police Magistrate nominated by the Secretary of State; but the Secretary of State is also empowered, if for special reasons he considers it advisable to do so, to nominate lay justices from the panel of the London juvenile court justices, to act as chairmen of the juvenile courts. The recent Departmental Committee on Courts of Summary jurisdiction in the Metropolitan area recommended that it should be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide whether the London juvenile courts should be presided over by Metropolitan Police Magistrates or by lay

923
justices, instead of making the appointment of lay chairmen dependent on the existence of special reasons. These courts have been presided over by lay chairmen since November, 1936, and the Departmental Committee reported that they were working well. Clause 7 gives effect to the Departmental Committee's recommendation as to the constitution of the juvenile courts.
There are one or two other small provisions, but I do not think it is necessary to refer further to them. It will thus be seen that the Bill contains a variety of useful provisions, the effect of which will be to increase the powers of the juvenile courts in ways which will enable them still better to carry out the duties imposed upon them by the Act of 1933. For example, they must have regard to the child's welfare in a proper case, to take steps for removing the child from un-desirable surroundings, and secure that proper provision is made for his education and training. Experience has shown the need of the amendments proposed in this Bill, and it is certain that the passage of the Bill into law will add to the flexibility of the powers which the juvenile courts at present possess, and will therefore enable them still more effectively to discharge the duties imposed upon them by Parliament. I respectfully ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships for a very few moments on this Bill, for the reason that just thirty years ago I had the privilege of framing the first Children Bill, and of steering it on its way through Parliament. It was that Bill which established the juvenile courts in this country. In the same year also we passed the Probation of Offenders Act, and again in 1933 it fell to me to be responsible for the Children Act, which is now the principal Act, proposed to be amended by this Bill. For those reasons I venture to rise and offer to this measure a very cordial welcome. This is a Bill of definition and procedure. All its proposals are useful, all of them are desired by those who are concerned with the day-by-day working of the juvenile courts; and in a single sentence I will express the
924
hope that it may receive the approval of His Majesty's Government, and the assent of your Lordships' House.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I rise only to say that this Bill is one which receives the strongest support of His Majesty's Government, and that they hope your Lordships will approve the Second Reading this afternoon, and help to pass the Bill into law as quickly as possible.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD HAULAGE WAGES (No. 2) 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 the Bill is to make provision with respect to the remuneration of workers employed on motor goods vehicles. The Bill follows in the main the recommendations of the Baillie Committee, published as Command Paper No. 5440. The workers covered by the Bill are, briefly, the travelling staff who accompany a vehicle to drive it or to attend to it or its load. They include the driver, the person who sits with him, known officially as the statutory attendant, and the person who sometimes sits in the tail of the vehicle, ho may be either a man or a boy. Loading and unloading are included, if done by the travelling staff; and incidental work and such waiting time as is a necessary consequence of the work are also included. Those workers are excluded, however, who merely travel on the vehicle for the purpose of reaching the place where they are to perform work other than road haulage work. For example, engineers who are taking engines or machines from one place to another. If they travel on the vehicle in order to set up the machinery at the place of destination they would not come under the provisions of this Bill. In the same way, as any of your Lordships who may have moved houses know, there are expert packers who pack china and pieces of furniture, and who accompany the van to its destination; but these would not come under the provisions of this Bill. The workers who are covered are

925
the travelling staff, who really belong to the vehicle.
The Bill is divided into two main Parts, on the basis of the kind of licence required for the vehicle under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. I might here say that those licences are of three kinds: A licences, required for those who let out their transport; C licences—I take them next in order—for those who provide their own transport; and B licences for those who both let out and provide their own transport. Provision is made in Part I of the Bill, by Clauses 1 and 2, for the establishment of a Central Wages Board for Great Britain, a Scottish Area Wages Board, and area boards for ten areas in England and Wales, corresponding to the existing traffic areas. Area boards will consist of equal numbers of representatives of employers and workers, appointed by the Minister of Labour. Before determining the number of members of which any area board is to consist, and before appointing any member, the Minister will consult with organisations representing employers and workers in the area. The Central Board will consist of not less than twelve nor more than eighteen representative members appointed by the Minister of Labour. One half of these members will be persons representing employers of workers on A and B licensed vehicles, and one half will be persons representing such workers. Before appointing any such members and before determining the number of such representative members, the Minister will consult any organisations appearing to him to represent such employers and workers respectively. There will be a further twenty-four members, comprising one member from each side of each area board in England and Wales, and two members from each side of the Scottish Area Board. For each such member the Minister will appoint a substitute member, and before appointing any member or substitute member the Minister will consult the area board concerned.
The Minister will also appoint not less than three, nor more than five, independent members, of whom one will be Chairman and another Deputy-Chairman of the Central Board. These independent members will be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have no connection with the transport of goods. In Clause 3 your Lordships will see that the Central Board will be empowered to submit
926
to the Minister of Labour proposals for fixing remuneration (including holiday remuneration) to be paid. The Minister will be empowered to make an order bringing the proposals into force unless he considers it necessary to refer the proposals back to the Board. The remuneration specified in the Minister's order will be known as "statutory remuneration." In the case of Scotland special provision is made for the Area Board to initiate proposals for fixing remuneration Workers whose remuneration is the subject of other statutory wage regulation, and road transport workers employed by railway companies whose wages and conditions are determined by agreements between the companies and the railway trade unions, are excluded from this Part of the Bill.
Part II of the Bill—that is, Clauses 4 and 5—contains provisions for the regulation of remuneration of workers employed on vehicles for which a C licence is necessary, for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business, but not for hire or reward. This Part will come into operation on the date on which the first Minister's order under Part I comes into force. In Clause 4 it will be seen that a worker or his trade union, or a trade union representing a substantial number of road transport workers, may complain to the Minister of Labour if they consider that the remuneration paid is unfair. Such complaints are to be referred to the Industrial Court, unless frivolous or unless withdrawn after the Minister has made representations to the employer concerned. If there is in existence joint machinery for settling disputes, any complaint concerning an employer whose organisation is a party to the joint machinery must be referred to that machinery for settlement, and can only be referred to the Industrial Court at the request of both sides.
In Clause 5 it is laid down that if the Court thinks that the remuneration is unfair it will be the duty of the Court to fix the remuneration to be paid. This remuneration will also be known as "statutory remuneration." The Court when fixing "statutory remuneration" must have regard to the foregoing provisions and also to any collective agreements concerning the remuneration of similar workers in comparable trades or

927
industries, and to the general level of wages of other classes of workers in the trade or industry to which the reference relates. In any procedings on a reference to the Industrial Court the right to attend and to be heard is given to any organisation of employers or trade union which, by reason of its membership, appears to have an interest in the matter referred. "Statutory remuneration" fixed by the Court will apply to the case of the worker concerned in the reference, and to any other workers employed on similar work by the same employer. The Court is given power to make its decision retrospective for a period not exceeding six months in the case of the worker concerned. Persons employed on work for which a minimum rate of wages has been fixed by or under any other Act of Parliament are excluded from this Bill. I then come to Part III of the Bill, which is really the longest Part, Clauses 6 to 17. This Part deals generally with the enforcement of "statutory remuneration" fixed by an order of the Minister under Part I of the Bill or by a decision of the Industrial Court under Part II. Under Clause 16 it will be observed that special provisions are laid down as regards Scotland.
The Bill will directly affect a quarter of a million licence holders and 500,000 vehicles, worked by between 500,000 and 600,000 men. The Bill will also, we think, improve the conditions under which good employers are working; that is to say, men who have been trying to work fair wages agreements and have found themselves up against other employers who were perhaps not so inclined. And, in addition, it will have another important effect; I think, and the Government think, that it will increase the chances of safety on the road. It is a matter of justice to a very hard working section of our people, and it is, I should hope, in this House as in another place, entirely uncontroversial, and for that reason I commend it to the judgment of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I intervene for a few minutes only to say how heartily those with whom I am associated wish to support the Bill and the principles which it embodies. It embodies the
928
results of the kind of negotiation which has proceeded for a good many years between the representative associations of employers and of workers, and it would be very helpful if it were imitated much more widely. It relates to an exceedingly difficult and complicated set of conditions, and I think that those concerned deserve a tribute of admiration for having evolved this scheme of conciliation and agreement out of such diverse and often conflicting circumstances. I would make a reference to one or two of the findings of the Baillie Committee, to which the noble Lord has referred, because they emphasize conditions of which this Bill provides an example which one cannot but hope will be followed. The Committee, recognising that in some conditions good employers have been prejudiced, or are prejudiced, by the fact that all others do not observe as good conditions with regard to their employees, insist that it is necessary that the organisations concerned should be fully representative of their industries, and that the findings of the Court should be made applicable to all. That I am sure is very obviously necessary, and it was a condition for which some of us struggled many years ago when joint industrial councils were first set up.
There are, however, one or two points connected with the C class of licence to which I should like to refer for a moment. I notice that in paragraph 74 of the Report of the Committee, a very important principle is laid down which I hope the noble Lord will consider between now and the later stages of the Bill in order to satisfy himself that it really has been given effect to. The Committee in their Report express the opinion that uneconomic conditions should be checked. They say that it is undesirable to regulate one section of the industry (that is A and B licence holders) and leave another section entirely uncontrolled, which is clearly right; and they go on to state the very important principle that the fixing of wages for the industry is a necessary first step to a standard wage, but it should not depend upon a prior determination of rates. I wish we could get that splendid principle embodied much more widely than in this Bill. If it had been embodied, we will say in agriculture, we should not find agricultural labourers, highly skilled workers, among the worst paid of any workers in the country. We

929
should find then that we had a condition of prices which enabled proper wages to be paid, and that is the principle which is sought to be embodied in this Bill. I for one rejoice at its recognition by His Majesty's Government.
Coming to look at the Bill itself for a moment, I see that Clauses 5 and 6 relating to the conditions of employment of those employed under C licences appear to be almost limited to the fixing of remuneration, and there does not seem to be much said about the conditions under which they are to drive. As we all know—and I am glad to see my noble friend (Lord Alness) the Chairman of the Select Committee in his place—safety on the road is very much affected by the conditions under which men drive for long hours and under pressure of working to a schedule and all the rest of it; these may be the cause of a good many accidents and undoubtedly have been. I am not quite sure, reading the clauses of the Bill, whether these other conditions of employment apart from remuneration are fully dealt with. We shall probably receive more light on that point when we come to the Committee stage.
In connection with that, I would direct the attention of the noble Lord to Clause 9. That is a clause which prescribes, in respect of those who nominally own their own vehicles and use them for the transport of goods, but who may in fact be hired by a clearing house or some system of that kind, that their remuneration shall be as if they were employed. I am not quite sure that Clause 9 as it stands would safeguard them in that respect, because it provides that what they are paid shall be calculated after allowing for necessary expenditure in connection with the work—that is, the maintenance of the lorry, payment for oil, repairs, and all the rest of it. Who is to determine what the necessary expenditure is to be? It seems to me, as far as I can read the Bill, that that determination will be made by the parties who hire. If so, it may be that the intention of the Bill will be evaded. This applies to a very large number of drivers, and I hope the noble Lord will look into the matter between now and the Committee stage, when I shall specifically raise the point in order to clear the situation, because it is evident, if we are to produce uniformity in the conditions of employment on the roads, it will not do to pass
930
a Bill with what would be, in fact, a large hole in it applying to one section of drivers—in fact the most numerous section—affected by the Bill. Apart from these detailed criticisms, I would like on behalf of my noble friends to give the Bill my most cordial support.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I intervene for a short time, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, to ask the noble Lord in charge questions on two points. I want to emphasize what my noble friend has just noted, which is that this body of workers with whom we are dealing have very heavy work to do, and it is of the utmost importance not only that their remuneration but their hours of work should be protected. I know that there is by Act of Parliament a statutory limit to the hours that should be worked by these lorry-men, but anybody who has been on the road a good deal must notice that in all probability there are many cases in which these hours are exceeded. There is nobody so dangerous on the road as an overworked and tired man driving one of these large vehicles. In subsection (4) of Clause 5 hours are mentioned only to the extent of laying down the number of hours which must be worked in order to estimate the weekly rate payable and also the number of hours overtime. What I should like to ask is whether the Court can find out by that means whether this overtime exceeds the statutory limits already, and if some check on the working of these men for longer hours, which is notoriously done, can by this particular clause be applied.
The other point I would like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is perhaps a minor one, but I hope he will be good enough to explain it to me. On page 2 there is a proviso under subsection (2) of Clause r which states that the Act shall not apply to persons in the employment of any railway company whose remuneration falls to be determined by machinery established by agreement between such companies and the railway trade unions. I quite understand that that cannot be interfered with by this particular measure, but at the same time it would be an unfortunate consequence of this Bill if the remuneration insisted upon by the clauses of the Bill placed those who fall under it in a more favourable position than the lorry

931
drivers employed by the railway companies. I would ask the noble Lord whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, should this become law, anyhow to suggest to the railway companies that they should level up the remuneration of their lorry-men, who form a very considerable number of the lorry-men employed in the country, in order that they will not have a grievance in finding that those who come under this Bill are better paid then they are. I quite understand that it is a matter for the companies, and at the same time I believe that those who work under railway companies have certain privileges; but taking it broadly it would be a mistake to divide the lorry drivers of the country into two sections and not see that there is a uniform method of granting them the pay which is their due.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I am obliged to the two noble Lords opposite for their general support of the Bill. As regards the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in which he referred to paragraph 74 of the Baillie Committee's Report and to Clause 9 of the Bill, I am afraid these are not questions I could answer now across the Table, and I will, if I may, postpone them to the next stage of the Bill which, I may say for the information of your Lordships, I propose to put clown for to-day fortnight, June 28, so that there will be no hurry about the matter. I understood from the noble Lord that he would probably take the usual course and put down some Amendments on the Committee stage. I could then explain the view of the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the question, as I understood him, of whether under this Bill the hours of work of lorry drivers and other employees could be regulated as well as their wages. As the Bill stands I do not think they could, because if the noble Lord will look at the title of the Bill he will see it is a Bill
"to make provision with respect to the remuneration of persons employed in connection with the mechanical transport of goods by road, and with respect to the making of recommendations and reports, and the settlement of disputes, relating to matters affecting such transport."
I do not think, without altering the nature of the Bill, what the noble Lord
932
asked could be done, and if we made an alteration here I doubt whether it would be accepted by another place, but I will make inquiries. As to the question regarding the Court which is going to be set up to find out what overtime is being worked, I will also make inquiries and inform the noble Lord of the result of them at the next stage of the Bill.
The noble Lord also said that it was a pity that railway van workers were not included in the Bill. A precisely similar point was raised at the Committee stage in another place by an honourable member, Colonel Sandeman Allen, who in fact moved an Amendment to add certain words in page 2, line 20, so as to include these workers. This Amendment was refused by my right honourable friend the Minister for a number of reasons which I will explain to the noble Lord. At the present moment, as he knows, railway van drivers are not organised in a special union of their own. They are organised in the National Union of Railwaymen, and their rights are fully and very adequately safeguarded. Their wages, which I think are not unfavourable according to the Baillie Committee, were regulated by agreement as far back as 1920, that is eighteen years ago. Furthermore, the railway machinery is 100 per cent. effective in that decisions arrived at are carried out. I wish I could say the same of the haulage industry at present, but we hope that shortly such conditions will appertain in the road haulage industry. I think my noble friend will see that in the light of these facts any alteration would mean that the Central Board would have to include railway representation, and it would be a very strong representation. In the opinion of my advisers that would have an adverse effect upon the present excellent collective bargaining machinery. It was for these reasons, I think, that these workers were left out. As to the noble Lord's question whether it was the intention of the Government to suggest to the railways that they should level up their transport wages, I am afraid that is a question I cannot answer across the Table, but I will try to give the noble Lord an answer to that as well as to other points in a fortnight's time when this Bill is again considered. After this short but very friendly discussion I hope we may now get a Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill, it was stated that this was one of a number of major Consolidation Bills on which the Ministry of Health were engaged. I also explained then that the law was in some respects confused and contradictory, and therefore the Departmental Committee entrusted with this work had to introduce a certain number of Amendments entirely, of course, for the sake of clarity. It is a fact that it was these Amendments in the Bill that prevented it from being sent to the Consolidation Committee in the ordinary way, and instead your Lordships agreed that it should be sent to a special Joint Committee presided over by ray noble friend the Lord Chairman. That Committee have examined the Bill very closely, they have taken evidence from expert witnesses, and they have proposed a large number of Amendments which your Lordships will see on the Paper. Your Lordships will also see that while the Amendments are not entirely drafting in character, they are for the most part technical; but they do not seek to introduce any major alterations in the conditions under which food and drugs are sold in this country. They are designed purely to secure greater simplicity, uniformity and conciseness in the expression of the law. I may say that they have all been agreed by the Ministry of Health with the representatives of the local government associations.
In these circumstances I should like to suggest, if I may, that we should follow the precedents established in the case of the Local Government Act of 1933 and the Public Health Acts of 1936 and take all the Amendments en bloc. The Bill will then be available for discussion in the form finally approved by the Committee specially set up to consider it when it next comes before your Lordships' House. I suppose that in theory it would be open to your Lordships to discuss all these Amendments now on merits, and also any other questions arising in regard to the sale and disposal of food and
934
drugs. But I think that if we are going to consider all these Amendments on the Paper individually now it would be a very laborious task, and if they were amended from the point of view of their merits it might alter the whole character of the Bill and would not be in accordance with precedent. Therefore I suggest, if your Lordships agree, that we take all the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee en bloc to-day on the understanding that my noble friend Viscount Bertie of Thame, who has some Amendments down, and any other noble Lord will be able to move Amendments on the Report stage. But I can only respectfully invite your Lordships to confine any such Amendments to the limited nature that I have described. We are well aware that there are many controversial matters included in this Bill, but I must leave it to your Lordships to decide whether the Amendments had best be discussed now or at a later stage when your Lordships are in possession of the Bill as amended by the proposals of the joint Committee. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, perhaps as I happened to be Chairman of the Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and another place, which considered this Bill, I may say one or two words in regard to what my noble friend Lord Gage has said. I ought to say that I was not Chairman during the whole time, because I was incapacitated for a period by influenza, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord O'Hagan for having stepped into the breach. I should also add that I have had a little experience of Joint Committees on Bills of this kind. This is the third or fourth, I think, that we have had, and the procedure which my noble friend has indicated was followed on each occasion. That was to take the Amendments en bloc on the Committee stage, and then to discuss their effectiveness or the reverse on the Report stage when your Lordships had the Bill as amended before you. There are, as my noble friend has pointed out, a very large number of Amendments. I think there are over one hundred. Many of them are of a drafting character, some are Amendments of substance more or less, but I

935
think I ought to say this, that the Committee—and I am sure my noble friend Lord O'Hagan will agree with this—were careful in going through the Bill not to put into it any really controversial new matter.
It is really a Consolidation and Amending Bill of the existing law. Perhaps in that connection I may be allowed to draw your Lordships' attention to page 3 of the Report of the Joint Committee, which deals with milk. I refer to that particularly because it was mentioned on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I do not see him in his place to-day and so I imagine that he does not wish to make any further observations on the matter. The noble Lord drew attention to the fact that the Bill did not contain proposals for drastic amendment of milk legislation. That matter was considered by the Joint Committee, but it was thought that, in view of the declaration of the Government and of the White Paper issued on the subject, it would be more appropriate to leave any considerable alteration of the law in regard to milk until the Government bring forward their proposals. That applies also to other matters.
The Bill, as amended, is, if I may say so, a useful measure of consolidation. It takes about 250 provisions scattered over thirty-six Acts, some of which date back to the time of Henry VIII, and puts them into one Bill of 103 clauses. There are some drafting Amendments which my noble friend proposes to move en bloc and I hope that your Lordships will favourably consider the proposal to take those Amendments in that way and leave discussion until the Report stage when a print of the Bill, as amended, will be available.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, it would be quite convenient to me to move, on the Report stage, the Amendments of which I have given notice, and I have in fact notified the Clerks that I desire to withdraw the Amendments at this stage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg to move that the Amendments proposed by the Joint
936
Committee on pages 4 to 12 of their Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be made.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

STREET PLAYGROUNDS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Special provisions as to Scotland]:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2)—(i) In any case in which a local authority within the meaning of Section S (g) of the principal Act has given assistance by way of grant under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, to the owner of any house or houses in their district in respect of the reconstruction and improvement of such house or houses, such local authority may advance to such owner such proportion of the balance of the amount or amounts which the local authority are satisfied has or have been expended by the owner upon such reconstruction or improvement over and above the amount of the said grant as may be agreed to by the local authority not exceeding ninety per centum of the said balance.
(ii) The advance may be for such period not exceeding twenty years and repayable by an annuity during that period of such amount as may be agreed upon between the local authority and the owner.
(iii) The advance shall be secured by a charging order which it shall be competent for the local authority to make in favour of themselves over the farm on which the said house is situated, after notice has been given by the local authority to any person holding bonds or other securities for loans over the estate or farm on which such house is situated, for the amount of the annuity agreed upon and the provisions of Sections twenty-one and twenty-two of the Housing (Scotland) Act of 1925 shall, subject to the necessary modifications, apply to a charging

937
order so made in like manner as they apply to a charging order made in favour of an owner."
The noble Lord said: My noble friend the Marquess of Aberdeen has to be elsewhere to-day and he has asked me to move this Amendment. Your Lordships may remember that in Committee on the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Bill an Amendment was moved which the Government opposed on the ground that the parties had not come to an agreement. The parties were, however, much nearer to agreement than the information in the possession of the Government had led them to suppose, and the Amendment was withdrawn in order to give the parties an opportunity of meeting again. I am happy to say that they have met and that an Amendment has been agreed upon. During the negotiations it was objected that the proper place for the Amendment was not in the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Bill, but that in order to give it proper scope it should be inserted in the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill. Now that the parties have come to an agreement it is thought that this is the proper time and place to move the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 26, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Saltoun.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Strathcona, who usually deals with Scottish matters in your Lordships' House, I can only say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been considering the report of the conference between interested parties to which the noble Lord referred, and that he will inform the noble Lord later of his decision with regard to the suggestion that both
938
this Bill and the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Bill should be amended on the lines proposed at the conference. I am not able to-day to announce that decision, and the Government would therefore be very grateful to the noble Lord if he would withdraw his Amendment now on the understanding that the Secretary of State will let him know his decision as soon as possible. It may be possible to let him know this week, but in any case he will be informed in time to allow noble Lords interested to put down an Amendment at the Third Reading stage.
LORD SALTOUN: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for his assurance and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF BLINDNESS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, before we adjourn, I should like to say that as there is a considerable amount of business on the Paper for to-morrow it is proposed that the House should meet at three o'clock.
House adjourned at half past five o'clock.