Lords Sitting of 15 June 1938

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LEE CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATERWORKS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BAKING INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, though it happens that this measure is being moved from the Opposition Benches in this House, I do not think that any one would say that it could be termed in any sense whatever a Party measure. This Bill is in fact the result of agreement and compromise. It has emerged from a compromise between the Opposition and the Government in another place and between the conflicting interests and divergent points of view which it raised, and I think that it may be regarded as a happy testimonial to the democratic form of Government. To emphasize the fact that a very large measure of agreement was obtained in another place, I should like to point out that it received its Third Reading without a Division, and without so much as a single hostile speech. Its form, of course, has been very considerably changed in the course of its vicissitudes in Parliament. It started its life as a Bill to abolish night baking throughout the country, but, after a prolonged discussion during the Committee stage in another place, it became what it is now, a Bill to restrict and regulate night work in the baking industry.
It may not unreasonably be asked why those who work at night in the baking industry should be protected to any greater degree than those who work during the night in police stations, hospitals, or factories where furnaces have to be kept going both day and night. The really important difference, I think, is this, that the 25,000 to 30,000 night workers in the baking industry have been accustomed to be awake and at their labours at night, and to sleep during the day, the whole year round all their working lives; instead of having alternate spells of night and day work, which of course is the method in all other occupations where people have to attend to their jobs both during the day and at night. They have therefore been cut off from all normal social and domestic relations, and have become a sort of nocturnal species of the genus homo, produced by the middle-class industrial revolution of the nineteenth century. That is

943
the special position of the night bakers which has led to many efforts to improve their conditions, of which this is the last and, one hopes, will be the most effective.
I should like to emphasize the fact that this is not a Bill to put an end to night baking as such, but only to stop what would generally be agreed as the most objectionable and injurious form of work at bakeries at night. What broadly speaking the Bill says to baking firms is this: "You may not any longer work your men at night for six nights a week the whole year round, except of course during the holidays; but, instead, you may adopt any of the four alternatives that the Government offer you." First of all, they may do all their baking by day—in the morning or in the afternoon—and close down their premises between eleven at night and five in the morning. One sincerely hopes that many baking firms will find it possible to do their work then. But we all know that there are serious difficulties that would have to be faced, especially by the large firms, and it may not be possible for them without considerable economic sacrifice to adopt such a reversal of their present system.
The three other methods that will still be perfectly legal are more likely to appeal to those firms in which a serious loss of clientele might result from the complete abolition of night baking. The first alternative that this Bill offers is to permit night work for five nights in the week, instead of six, provided of course that the other two nights are free. The next method that is offered to baking firms is that they may work their men through Friday night and into Saturday morning in order to cope with week-end deliveries; the men may also start their labours at four o'clock every morning of the week, save only Sunday. Finally the third alternative in this Bill and the fourth alternative for all bakers who are at present employing men at night work is that, as in many other occupations, they may employ their men for twenty-six weeks in the year, that is to say for half the year, at night, provided that the work does not continue for more than three weeks on end at a time, with the exception of certain rush periods, during which elasticity would be permissible.
Those are the broad and salient features of the Bill which I am commending to
944
your Lordships for a favourable consideration. I should like for a few moments to deal with the detailed provisions that it contains. Clause I lays down as a general rule that there may be no baking between eleven at night and five o'clock in the morning, and then a number of exceptions to this general rule are specified and described in the subsequent clauses. The first of these exceptions comes in Clause 2. Clause 2 says quite plainly that night work may still be allowed, provided that it only takes place during five out of the seven nights in the week. Clause 3 contains the second special exception to the general principle of the Bill. Bakers may employ their men on night work on Friday nights into Saturday morning, and they may also start work at four o'clock instead of five o'clock on the other mornings in the week, Sundays always excepted. Clause 4 contains the third exception to the rule against night baking. In this clause night baking is allowed for twenty-six weeks in the year, but not for more than three weeks on end without a special permission being obtained from the Secretary of State.
Clause 5 requires employers to give notice of their intention to avail themselves of any of the exceptions provided in the Bill, and also to give notice of their intention to discontinue the practice of any such exception that they may have claimed in the past. Clause 6 gives the Home Secretary discretionary powers to exempt people from the provisions of the Bill in certain special circumstances, and the circumstances in question are very carefully laid down in the subsections of Clause 6. Clause 7 is a saving for biscuit factories. Biscuit manufacturers are specifically exempted, but if they are also making bread or cakes in their factories then those parts of the factories where these commodities are made will be subject to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 8 repeals provisions in certain earlier Acts of Parliament which were aimed at preventing bakers from working on Sundays. It is considered that the protection afforded by this Bill will replace the protection that was given in earlier Acts of Parliament.
Clause 9 is the first of the administrative clauses. It says that the Bill is to be administered and enforced by the factory inspectors of the Government in the same

945
way as the Factories Acts. Clause 10 deals with penalties for offences under this Bill and they are the same as penalties incurred by people who go against the provisions of the Factories Acts. Clause 11 enables firms who want to enlarge their premises to provide for additional machinery required by them for day-work to get an alteration in the contracts they have made in the lease of their premises by application to a County Court. Clause 12 deals with purely administrative machinery. Clause 13 is a definition clause, and the last clause, Clause 14, which is certainly of great importance, specifies the procedure whereby the Act, if this Bill becomes an Act, will come into force. It says that the Act will become operative on the 1st January, 1940—that is to say, about one year and a half from now—or, alternatively, as soon as a Trade Board has been appointed for the baking industry by the Government and a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. One naturally hopes that the latter procedure will, in fact, be adopted. We understand that the Government are strongly in favour of the appointment of a Trade Board, and clearly it would be desirable for as much agreement as possible to be obtained between employers and employees in the near future pending the time when this Act makes different conditions in the baking industry compulsory for all firms.
I very much hope that this Bill, which is a real if humble step forward in the direction of better conditions for those employed in the baking industry, will receive the same favourable and, indeed, unanimous accord in this House as it was fortunate enough to get in another place. I trust that my plea may be reinforced by those of your Lordships who have much more experience of this industrial problem than I can claim to have. We are sufficiently fortunate to have with us both an ex-Home Secretary and one who was Chairman of the first Departmental Committee appointed by the Government to inquire into the conditions of work in the baking industry, and especially to inquire into the problems of night baking. I sincerely hope, when your Lordships have listened to those who are far better qualified than I am to expound the merits of this measure, that the Bill may receive a favourable hearing and a Second Reading. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, you may remember that last year when the Factories Bill was before this House a clause was moved in the Committee stage for the abolition of night baking, that clause being moved by the noble Earl who has just spoken. Some of us on that occasion urged strongly that the opportunity ought not to be missed of remedying by legislation what is an undoubted and has been a long-standing grievance. However, at that time the Report of the Departmental Committee, presided over by Lord Alness, which was inquiring into the question of night baking, had not yet been received, and for that reason the Government declared that no action could properly be taken. The Report was, in fact, received between the Committee stage and the Report stage in this House, but in those circumstances it could not receive proper consideration. I for one expressed at that time great regret that the situation should be as it was, for one feared that if an opportunity for legislation was missed it might be long before Parliament would have occasion to review the subject. However, very fortunately, within twelve months a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons secured a place in the Ballot, and this Bill, after being greatly modified in the course of its passage through the other House, has passed through that House and is now before us.
The Report of the Departmental Committee—Lord Alness's Committee—declared that
"night baking, as now prevalent, involves serious social disadvantages for the operatives…"
At the same time the Committee thought that its complete abolition was too drastic, and they said:
"We think that some less damaging and more effective means should be sought for reducing to a minimum the social disadvantages under which the night baker labours. The employers themselves seem to recognise that there is room for improvement in the conditions under which night baking is carried on."
And they proceeded to make a number of specific suggestions. Following upon that Report, the employers and the employed came together, and when the Bill was in Standing Committee of the House of Commons it was announced that an agreement had been arrived at between them

947
on the lines of a compromise. The whole matter is very technical and complicated, as these industrial questions frequently are, but the essence of the Bill as now before us is that it offers three alternative plans for the employers under which they may be permitted to carry on night baking. This scheme has been accepted, though somewhat regretfully, by the representatives of the operatives, and the Standing Committee of the House of Commons completely recast the Bill which was before them in order to embody in it the compromise that had been reached.
That is the Bill which now comes before your Lordships' House, and I would venture to support the plea that has just been addressed to your Lordships by the noble Earl who has just spoken. For thirty years and more this matter has been a serious grievance among a large and highly deserving class of working people. The noble Viscount who then led the House, Lord Halifax, told us last year that he himself had been Chairman of a Departmental Committee on this question nearly twenty years ago which had put forward a scheme for adoption. For a whole generation this question has again and again been before Parliament. Now at last, to-day, a happy agreement has been reached between the contending parties. That agreement has been embodied in the Bill, has been endorsed unanimously by the House of Commons, and will, I trust, receive similar approval at the hands of your Lordships.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I had the honour of presiding over a Departmental Committee which inquired into night baking some nineteen years ago. That Committee made a very elaborate investigation and issued a unanimous Report, recommending that night baking should be restricted and that in some cases it should be the subject of certain exceptions. I remember that when that Committee was appointed there was a great outcry about night baking, due to the fact that night baking had been to a large extent suspended in consequence of the Bread Order made under D.O.R.A. during the War, and it was hoped at that time that the principle of that Order might in some way be continued. Our Report was made, and after that the agitation about the abolition of night baking seemed to
948
fall flat. The Report was not given effect to in any Bill, but I am glad that the principle underlying that Report has at last been adopted and forms part of this Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said these matters had been under discussion for about thirty years. As a matter of fact the subject of night baking has been under discussion for ninety years. The first Night Baking Bill was introduced in 1848 and then there was a long pause until some time about the 'nineties. After that Bills were introduced with considerable frequency. I am glad this matter has again come before your Lordships, and I am confident that this Bill is a good one for dealing with this vexed question.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I rise only to state to your Lordships the attitude which His Majesty's Government hold towards this Private Member's Bill. We know that the Bill has been greatly improved during its passage through another place, and it is now, as the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading said, definitely a compromise. In those circumstances we do not propose to offer any opposition to the Bill on its journey through your Lordships' House in substantially the form in which it has reached us from another place.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to wind up this debate with a very few words. In the first place, I would thank the Government for the position of neutral non-intervention observer which has been adopted, certainly with very admirable results, in my view, on this occasion. I should also like to thank those noble Lords who, with the weight of their long and very specialised experience, have recommended the measure to your Lordships. I should like further, if I might not inappropriately do so, to congratulate the noble Earl who has spoken for the Government on the appointment which we have heard with the utmost satisfaction announced in the Press. I commend this Bill again to your Lordships, and I thank the House very cordially for the extremely favourable reception that has been given to it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (REPAIRS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, this Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships to-day is an attempt to remedy an abuse which has made itself manifest in various parts of the country during the last few years. The abuse arises from the fact that there are, I think I can say in all long leases, covenants whereby the lessor has the right to insist upon the property being handed over at the end of the lease in proper repair, and also covenants whereby he can call upon the lessee to do repairs during the currency of the lease, and in case of need he can claim forfeiture of the lease where such covenants are not carried out. That is, of course, very necessary and very proper both in the interests of the lessor and of the lessee, but what has been happening recently is that certain ingenious people have discovered that by making an unconscionable and harsh use of that right they have been able to make a profit rather illegitimately, as it appears to those who have promoted this Bill, at the expense of the lessee.
In practice, of course, many things are the duty of the lessee under a strict reading of his lease which it is not in the immediate interest of the lessor to insist upon where there may be thirty or forty or fifty years of the lease to run. Cases are nowadays constantly occurring where the purchaser of the ground rent has threatened lessees with huge schedules of dilapidations and put pressure on these unfortunate people. This is followed up by a suggestion that the lessee shall either purchase the reversion to the freehold at an extortionate rate or alternatively sell his own leasehold for a price much below its real value. I think the best illustration I can give your Lordships is to quote some actual examples of the sort of thing that is going on all over the country. This Bill has passed through all its stages in another place and in the course of its passage there it attracted a good deal of publicity. The honourable member in another place who was in charge of the Bill received a tremendous amount of correspondence from all over the country. The examples which I will give your Lordships are only a few out of many thousands of similar cases.
950
I have in my hand a schedule of dilapidations served on the leaseholder of quite small premises in a suburb of Birmingham. There were two houses consisting of a front room, a living room, a box room and a scullery. Here is a schedule of eight pages of dilapidations, including such things as:
"Take down the blown, broken, cracked, flaked or otherwise defective chimney pots, replace same with new;"
and
"cut out broken, cracked, flaked or otherwise defective bricks, replace same and all missing ones with best kiln burnt bricks."
There is also a demand for a large amount of internal repairs, to cut out defective portions of the woodwork and so on. This property is reported as having been really in quite excellent condition. This demand was followed up by a suggestion that if the lessee did not care to carry out the work he should buy the freehold. In point of fact, being a person who had some money, he was prevailed upon under pressure to purchase the freehold at a price which amounted to something like fifty years' purchase. I have here another schedule of eight or ten pages of dilapidations. These demands all begin in the same way by saying "Take notice that a breach of covenant has been committed." A surveyor's report is enclosed with a demand for so many guineas for expenses already incurred. The document says that if the defects are remedied and the repairs done within three months a sum of so many guineas will be accepted for expenses already incurred. This document which I am now quoting referred to three rooms upstairs and a kitchen and scullery downstairs. It is a case from Lower Edmonton.
These cases are very numerous in London and Birmingham and also in South Wales. One of the cases which has attracted the greatest attention is that of an estate known as the Trealaw Estate in South Wales. In that case a financial syndicate purchased the freehold from the owner in whose family the property had been for a good many years and proceeded to issue what was described as a "special Jubilee offer" to sell the freeholds. The conditions of sale were as follows:
"1 (a) Thirty years' purchase where the ground rent is more than £I per annum per

951
house, and the lease has more than forty years to run"—
your Lordships will see from the ground rent that it is small property—
"(b) Where the ground rent is less than £1 per annum per house and the lease has less than forty years to run, each case must be treated on its merits.
2. If the above offer is not accepted by 12th May, 5937"—
they had chosen Coronation Day—
"the company's surveyor will proceed to examine the properties in order to make a list of dilapidations, after which the survey fees will be payable in addition to the purchase price.
3. After receiving notice, unless the premises are put into perfect repair, notices will be served on the house owner for the forfeiture of the lease."
The kind of people to whom this notice was sent is shown by a paragraph which appeared in The Times. A return was furnished by the Trealaw Leaseholders' Association which was formed after the receipt of these offers, and the paragraph states that the return
"shows that out of 280 communications received by that body from house owners, forty-six were from old age and other pensioners, forty-seven from widows and spinsters, and sixty-five from unemployed men. Of the remaining 122 some were miners in irregular employment and earning low wages, and others were small shopkeepers whose businesses are none too prosperous."
I will give your Lordships one other example. I could detain you for a long time quoting examples, but I think I have given enough to show that there is real hardship and hardship to small people. The last case I shall quote relates to a man who happens to be a bank messenger and who lives in Shepherd's Bush. A firm called Benabos has purchased the freehold. That is the name of one of these firms which have gone in rather extensively for this sort of business. These firms were referred to by the learned Attorney-General in another place. He said:
"One can pay some tribute to their ingenuity, but none to their sense of social justice."
In the case at Shepherd's Bush to which I am referring, the house owner wrote:
"Almost immediately after Benabos had purchased the freehold of the above property, a surveyor was sent to view the house and a schedule of dilapidations was sent to me. The house was in an excellent state of repair, but being unable to find much wrong with it among other small items they ordered me to repoint the coal-cellar and reinstate a wall
952
that has not been in existence, to my knowledge, for the past thirty odd years. If I do reinstate the wall the room will be so small that the council have told me no adult may sleep in it, and as the house already has an excellent bathroom it seems ridiculous to build it as the room would be useless. Furthermore, the present tenant tells me he will not stay if I build the wall … I then placed the matter in the hands of a solicitor and two surveyors viewed the house and both declared it to be in excellent condition but Benabos demand the wall to be built. The matter is still in the hands of the solicitor and needless to say the affair is causing much anxiety as we quite realise that Benabos do not want anything but that we should sell the house or for us to purchase the ground rent at an exorbitant price. This is nothing but blackmail."
That of course is the truth. It is nothing but blackmail.
The problem was to find a remedy which would give protection to these small householders and at the same time would not be vexatious to the ground landlord or interfere with the proper management of property. I think that has been done. The method of procedure is by amendment of the Law of Property Act, 1925. That Act provides that a right of re-entry or forfeiture under any proviso or stipulation in a lease cannot be enforced unless a notice has been given in a prescribed form. Clause 1 of this Bill makes provision that where such a notice is served the lessee may, within twenty-one days, serve a counter-notice to the effect that he claims the benefit of this Act. Subsection (2) of Clause r extends the necessity to serve notice to a claim for damages. Subsection (3) provides that where a counter-notice is served the lessor can take no further steps except with the leave of the Court. Subsection (4) is necessary, I think. It provides that a notice served shall not be valid unless it contains a statement that this resource is available to the lessee, expressed in characters not less conspicuous than those used in any other part of the notice.
In subsection (5) of Clause I we come to what I may describe as the meat of the Bill. That states the reasons for which the Court may give leave to the lessor. The first is if he proves
"that the immediate remedying of the breach in question is requisite for preventing substantial diminution in the value of his reversion, or that the value thereof has been substantially diminished by the breach."
The second reason, in paragraph (b), is

953
that the immediate remedying of the breach is necessary in order to allow compliance with the by-laws of a local authority, sanitary notices and so on. Paragraph (c) is very important because it provides that leave may be given in a case where the lessee is not in occupation of the house but the immediate remedying of the breach is required in the interests of the occupier. That, of course, is a complete protection to what I may call the genuine ground landlord who wishes to see that his property is not deteriorating into a slum. The fourth reason is that the breach can be immediately remedied at an expense that is relatively small compared to the expense which could be caused if the breach were allowed to continue. That permits application of the principle of "a stitch in time." Then there is a provision under which leave may be given in special circumstances.
The sixth subsection of this clause gives discretion to the Court to impose such terms and conditions as it may think fit on lessor or lessee, and I can conceive that that would be useful in the case of an obstructive lessee—somebody who would make use of these powers for the purpose of harassing a genuine ground landlord and trying to obstruct the proper operation of the covenants of the lease. The other clauses I think I need not go through in detail, although I shall be happy to try and meet any questions if they are raised.
I think I can tell your Lordships that this Bill was received with approval by all sections in another place, and that it has been carefully scrutinised by those who are concerned to see that the conditions under which property is held are not affected improperly from one side or the other. I do not think it necessary to enter upon a defence of the leasehold system in your Lordships' House. I think most of us feel that the leasehold system has worked well. From my own experience I can tell your Lordships that I have found that slums are more likely to occur where you have a conglomeration of small freeholds than where you have the leasehold system properly worked and properly administered. If, then, we are agreed that the leasehold system works well, I think it is incumbent upon us where we find a very definite abuse, to put that abuse right. So often in putting one thing right one
954
runs a risk of opening the door to other abuses. I think in this case I can commend this Bill to your Lordships as being what we so often hear talked about and so seldom find: a really agreed Bill. I shall be surprised if any of your Lordships has any exception to take either to the principle of this Bill or—perhaps it is a hold thing to say but I think it is true—to any of its clauses. In that hope, my Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time, and I hope your Lordships will do all that is possible to expedite its further passage into law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I desire to add a word in reference to this Bill to the speech to which your Lordships have just listened. I think I can say that it is in all respects an admirable Bill, and would serve to stop the iniquitous practices of a small number of landlords who take advantage of the impecunious condition of certain tenants. There was a day when lawyers, and perhaps certain members of the public, thought that if adequate legal remedies were provided for persons who were being unjustly oppressed, that was all that the State need bother about. But those days are now fortunately past. It is not sufficient to provide legal remedies for abuses of the kinds which are mentioned in this Bill and to trust to those remedies and nothing else, for the reason, as has been mentioned in the admirable opening speech which your Lordships have heard, that the persons attacked by this small but iniquitous class of landlord are persons who cannot afford to go to law.
In the cases which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has mentioned, and of which we know sufficient to understand their nature, the defendants, had they been persons of means, had complete power to meet the situation. The schedules of dilapidations which have been referred to are iniquitous schedules, and the abuse which is inherent in applications such as those to which the noble Lord referred is an abuse which would be met by the Court, if the whole of the subject matter were before the Court, by leaving the applicant to pay his own costs and giving him very, very small relief, if any, in respect of these nominal breaches of covenant. But, of course, if a man is out

955
of work, or is a person who is in receipt of a pension, or for some other reason has no more than sufficient to enable him to carry on and to provide means of support for those who are dependent on him and for himself, in a case such as that the law is not an adequate remedy at all, and I think it is well that it should be recognised that lawyers as well as laymen are together in desiring to stop such practices as have been referred to, by strengthening the law so that what has adequately and fairly been described as methods of blackmail shall not be employed by the persons whom I have mentioned. The substantive "blackmail" is not too strong a word to use in this connection, because those who adopt these practices know quite well that the steps they are taking by means of notices of alleged breaches in relation to tenancies which have many years to run are really an effort to obtain money by offering to the persons against whom they are taking those steps an opportunity to sell their premises at an egregious price. For my part I am extremely glad that this measure has come before your Lordships and I hope it will be afforded unanimous support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION 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 Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Use of title "Architect."
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a person shall not practise or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the word "Architect" unless he is a person registered under the principal Act:
Provided that …
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after "principal
956
Act," and immediately preceding the proviso, to insert:
"at the date of the passing of this Act or unless thereafter he is a person who makes application to the Council in the prescribed manner and on payment of the prescribed fee, is entitled to be registered under this Act and the principal Act, if the Council are satisfied on a report of the Admission Committee—

(a) that he is an architect member of the Royal Academy or of the Royal Scottish Academy; or

(b) that he is a person who has gained a diploma in architecture from any university in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or from a school of architecture recognised as such by the Council; or

(c) that he has passed the national qualifying examination for registration approved by the Council and held by the Board."

The noble Viscount said: Under the terms of the Act of 1931, known as the principal Act, an architect could please himself whether he registered or not. Failure to do so did not prevent him calling himself an architect. The provisions of this Bill seem clear as regards the person now practising as an architect, because there is a period during which such a person may register. When that period expires one might assume that applicants for registration would have to pass a qualifying examination, but that is not so, because the Bill makes no provision for such applicants, relying apparently on the principal Act to which I will refer later. Now the principal Act is so ambiguous and inequitable that a resolution was passed unanimously by the Registration Council to that effect. It is in order to try to remove some of the ambiguities that the Amendments in my name appear on the Amendment Paper.
There was a Whip issued yesterday by about a dozen noble Lords against my Amendments in their original form, and I have tried to meet their objections in the Amendments which are now before the House. I have added certain words to the Amendments. Paragraph (b) in this Amendment originally read
"that he has gained a diploma in architecture from any university in Great Britain or Northern Ireland."
I have added "or from a school of architecture recognised as such by the Council," which I hope will meet noble Lords' objections. Persons who qualify under these heads must be few in number and must be all children of well-to-do people, because university education is not cheap

957
nor are the fees of architectural schools, which I believe are 300 guineas upwards. Therefore poorer people must find some cheaper means of entry into the profession and ought to have a qualifying examination. By whom is this examination to be conducted? Surely by the Registration. Council through its Board of Architectural Education.
If you look at Clause 5 of the principal Act you will find that this Board of Education, a body established by the Registration Council, and which is in existence, is charged with the duty of holding examinations. I may surprise and shall probably shock some of your Lordships when I inform you that this body has not once carried out its statutory duty to hold examinations during the six or more years of its existence. The effect of my Amendment would be to compel the Board to carry out what Parliament ordered it to do in 1931, and which, as I have said, it has hitherto neglected to do. If these provisions are not included in the Bill what will happen? The examinations of universities and recognised schools are already accepted, but there is only one examination recognised by the Council, and that is the Royal Institute of British Architects examination. This recognition has led to a good deal of criticism in the profession, into which I do not propose to enter. It is, however, felt that the Royal Institute of British Architects has got a virtual monopoly. If there is a national qualifying examination, as there is in the legal and therapeutic professions, there will be no cause for complaint and harmony will be restored. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, at end, insert the said words. —(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am in some difficulty about this group of Amendments, because what is in your Lordships' hands has not been circulated to the House.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Oh yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Paper is headed "The Amendments marked * have not been previously circulated."
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: They have been circulated since that was printed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Most of your Lordships came down to the House about an hour ago, and did not have an opportunity of seeing that Paper until then, but by great good fortune I heard about these Amendments this morning, and was able to look at them. In several respects they differ from those which were originally proposed, and I think it is rather hard that Amendments which in effect destroy the whole basis of the original Act, which is six years old, should be put before your Lordships without notice. However, I must do the best I can. My noble friend is really under a great misapprehension. He says that as the Act stands the Royal Institute of British Architects has a virtual monopoly. That is a complete misapprehension. The Royal Institute of British Architects is the oldest examining body in the country. It is older than any school, and older than any university, and under these Amendments it will be prevented in future from conducting examinations as a qualification for registration. I really think there ought to be some good and strong case alleged before the Royal Institute of British Architects should be forbidden to hold examinations. It has done so for over fifty or sixty years, and no reason has been advanced why it should not be allowed to do so in future. So far for monopoly. My noble friend is under a most extraordinary misapprehension. Then he said that, as things are, children of well-to-do people alone can get entrance into a school of architecture, and he said that it cost up to £300 a year.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I said that the architectural school fees were 300 guineas a year and upwards. That was the best information I had.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I may tell my noble friend that there are schools in this country where complete qualifying examinations may be passed, after a course of from three to five years. There are the Universities of London, Sheffield, Durham, Manchester and Liverpool, the Royal Institute of British Architects, and the following schools, Leeds, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Cardiff, the Regent Street Polytechnic, Birmingham and Belfast, and the Architectural Association of London. Further, many of the schools also hold evening classes, in some cases at a cost of under £1 per annum. I assert that in some of those schools the fees are really nominal. Those schools are

959
among the nineteen which are authorised by the Board of Architectural Education to hold examinations, and the boys and girls from those schools get their diplomas accordingly. There is really no answer to that, and my noble friend has been misinformed. To allege that this is a well-to-do profession is really quite fantistic, and to allege that the Royal Institute of British Architects has got a virtual monopoly, when I have given the names of these other institutions which conduct examinations and provide classes, is really an unjust thing to say.
The third point in these Amendments is that the Board of Architectural Education shall in future hold what is called a national examination. My noble friend again has been misinformed about the parent Act. That Statute sets up two Committees, one called the Council and the other called the Board. The Council deals with registration and the organisation and departmental work of registration, and the Board deals with the educational side of it. It is an immense body of seventy-five members, and it has under the parent Act power to conduct examinations. My noble friend says that it is its duty. That is not so. If he had read to the end of the clause he would have found the optional words which follow.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It says that it shall be the duty of the Board to recommend to the Council certain things, and to hold examinations in accordance with the Act.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If the noble Viscount will go on to subsection (4) of the next section, he will find that they are not obliged to do that if they prefer that this examination should be conducted by other bodies, and that is the decision that this Architectural Board has reached—that on the whole it is best for architectural education that there should be a variety of examinations instead of a single national examination. I conclude by giving the reason for that decision. It will be quite easy for this Architectural Board to say, "We will have a national examination," but the immediate effect of that would be to standardise the examination in architecture. How could the London Polytechnic, for instance, or the Technical School
960
at Leeds compete against a national examination held in London? It could not do so. After ten years you would suppress the smaller local schools. That would be fundamentally a mistake.
When the medical people came to form fifty years ago their system of examinations, they very wisely decided that even in medicine a centralised and national examination would be a mistake; and so Edinburgh has its degrees, Dublin gives its degrees, and Manchester, Cambridge, Oxford give their degrees, the object being that in learning, in science, in architecture—in all the sciences and arts—the greater variation you could have the better, and the less standardisation the better. I should have thought that there was no science or art in this country which less than architecture demands any measure of standardisation. This Amendment would enforce a standardised national examination. In doing so it would knock out all these smaller, though very admirable, institutions to which I have referred; and I very earnestly hope that your Lordships will not accept any of the Amendments which stand in the name of my noble friend.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: I venture to support the clause as it stands, not only for the reasons put forward by my noble friend Lord Crawford, but also for an entirely separate and distinct reason. It will be observed that the clause which my noble friend Lord Bertie wishes to have dropped, provides that—
"where at the date of the passing of this Act any person …
(ii) is a member of any of the following institutions, that is to say—

The Institution of Civil Engineers;

The Institution of Structural Engineers;

The Chartered Surveyors' Institution; and

The Institution of Municipal and County Engineers;

nothing in this section shall prevent the use of the word 'architect' in the description of that person as the holder of such an office in the service of that or any other local authority, if and so long as the local authority's servant or servants engaged under him for the purposes of such work is or include a person registered under the principal Act."
That portion of the clause was arranged after correspondence between the Architects' Registration Council and the Joint Committee set up by the engineering profession to consider the terms of this Bill,

961
and might almost be considered as passing through another place as an agreed measure in view of the decision of the engineers not to oppose further the Bill. If that is going to be dropped it is quite obvious it will upset the whole balance of this Bill so far as it applies to these respective professions. Upon that ground alone I would suggest that we ought to let this clause stand.
In particular, let me inform the House that this letter was sent from the Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom to the Secretary of the Joint Committee of the engineering profession on the Bill, expressing the arrangement at which they had arrived. The letter is dated May 9, 1938, and it says:
"As the outcome of our meeting with the representatives of the Joint Committee on Thursday, I write to say that you have my assurance that it is not, and never has been, the intention of my Council to interfere in any way with the legitimate work or functions of structural or civil engineers, and so far as my Council are concerned there is no ulterior motive behind the Bill' now before Parliament."
As I have said, the clause expresses the arrangement which has been arrived at between these bodies of professional gentlemen, and I venture to suggest that the clause ought to stand in the terms in which it is at present expressed.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I think my noble friend Lord Crawford is wrong when he says that my Amendment would prevent the Royal Institute of British Architects holding an examination, and I think he is wrong about standardisation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Why wrong?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Because of the provision in paragraph (b) of my Amendment, which says:
"that he is a person who has gained a diploma in architecture from any university in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or from a school of architecture recognised as such by the Council."
That does not make for standardisation. I am perfectly willing to withdraw this Amendment now if ray noble friend will come and have a conference with those who asked me to move this Amendment. I think that is a fair offer—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: —because we might be able to come to terms.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No case has been made for excluding the Royal Institute of British Architects from those who are entitled to conduct examinations. No case has been made to show that the existing schools and universities are unfair in the matter of fees to the children of parents in humble circumstances. No case has been made to show that a national examination would be preferable to the great variety of examinations already held. Really in those circumstances I do not see that there is very much on which we ought to confer.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Though I am going to withdraw the Amendment now, I cannot undertake that I shall not bring it up again on Report. With regard to what was said by my noble friend Lord Home, I do protest that we are not bound by any agreed measure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Date of application for registration.
2.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, a person shall, on application made to the Council in the prescribed manner after the passing of this Act and before the first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty, and on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to be registered under the principal Act, if he proves, to the satisfaction of the Council or, on an appeal under this section, to the satisfaction of the tribunal hearing the appeal, that at the date of the passing of this Act he was, or had been practising as an architect in the United Kingdom or in any part of the British Empire.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any part of the British Empire" and insert "some other part of His Majesty's dominions." 'The noble Earl said: In my Bill I use the term "British Empire." I am sorry to say that that term is not known to the Legislature, and under duress I am obliged to move to substitute therefor "some other part of His Majesty's dominions." Under protest I beg to withdraw "the British Empire" and substitute the other words.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("any part of the British Empire") and insert ("some other

963
part of His Majesty's dominions").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Offences.
3. If any person contravenes this Act he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and to a further fine not exceeding ten pounds for every day on which the offence continues after conviction therefor:
Provided …
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after "contravenes," to insert "the provisions of." The noble Viscount said: I suppose my noble friend will accept this Amendment. It is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, after ("contravenes") insert ("the provisions of").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Oh dear no. I think if the Lord Chancellor were to look at this Amendment he would say it was quite tautological and superfluous.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The words appear in most measures.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We'll toss for it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It arises out of the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Cadman. It arises also out of the realisation to which we have been driven, that the old saying that British civil aviation had got to fly by itself cannot stand to-day against the subsidised competition which it has to meet. In asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading it is not for me either to defend or attack Imperial Airways, but I do think it is fair to Imperial Airways that we should remind
964
ourselves of the fact that up to the very latest we have made it a cardinal rule of our civil air policy that our subsidies should be as low as possible and that we should aim at civil flying being put on a completely commercial and paying basis. We are the only country that has asked that particular industry to bring this about.
Again, if any of your Lordships have flown on the modern flying boats which are now in operation, I think you will agree that there is really nothing to compare with them throughout the world. I myself have had experience in the last eighteen months of flying something like 30,000 miles in Africa and Australia and on the way back from Australia. I repeat that I have seen nothing to compare with the new Imperial Airways flying boats. Not only have they speed, but they have quite extraordinary comfort, and those of your Lordships who have done any of these long journeys will agree with me that comfort most certainly does count in flying. Yesterday we had the welcome news given to us that Sir John Reith had consented to take on the responsibility of the Chairmanship of Imperial Airways. While many of us may regret the loss to the B.B.C., we must all feel intensely delighted that this great national business has been put under Sir John Reith's care.
In spite of these points which I have ventured to put, we have to admit that, taking things all in all, there is no doubt that many other countries have gone ahead of us in civil flying, ahead of us even in those parts of the world which we are entitled to consider as our particular sphere of influence. Here we come to the need for this Bill. What are the recommendations which have to be considered in discussing this Bill? We were recommended that services should be established between London and all the capitals of Europe. I can tell your Lordships that we envisage under the financial provisions of this Bill an extension of services to Berlin, Amsterdam, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Oslo, and Lisbon, and I particularly underline Lisbon as being the first stage in the South Atlantic scheme. We were recommended to go ahead with the South Atlantic scheme, and I can inform your Lordships that not only was one important survey carried out last year, but

965
there is another at present in progress, and while I cannot give your Lordships any exact date at the moment for the initiation of the service, I can assure you that the arrangements are going ahead as quickly as possible. Then there is the question of services in the West Indies and the Pacific. With regard to both of these services, again, negotiations are in hand, and with regard to the Pacific service I can inform your Lordships that so far as we have got they are progressing exceedingly favourably.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the Minister what he means by the Pacific service—between which places?
EARL DE LA WARR: The service over the Pacific from the North American Continent down to Australia and New Zealand. Finally we were recommended to put up more money for the better treatment of civil flying, and accordingly this Bill appears before your Lordships with the recommendation that the subsidy to civil flying should be increased from £1,500,000 to £3,000,000. To a very large extent that increase will go to the improvement of the Empire air mail services. It will also be used to the extent of about £400,000 for the European schemes, and then there will be a sum of approximately £100,000 allotted to the development of civil flying here at home. We shall hope that in time to come the home services will be put on a more commercial basis. These are very large sums to be handing out, but I can inform your Lordships that all companies receiving a subsidy are liable to have one or more Government directors appointed to their boards. That has been carried out both in the case of British Airways and Imperial Airways. There will also he arrangements made in the negotiations for the subsidy to see that the subsidy does not lead to undue profits.
With regard to the home services, they will be carefully co-ordinated under a licensing authority set up under the Air Navigation Order to which your Lordships gave your consent only a few days ago. There has been some criticism in the past, perhaps not entirely without reason, as to the backwardness of some of our civil machines. At the present moment the Air Ministry is co-operating with the industry in producing new machines of the most up-to-date type. De Havillands have now on the stocks
966
a machine called the "Albatross," a machine which is more specifically for the carriage of mails, which has a range of 3,000 miles and a speed of approximately 200 miles an hour. The same firm have an all-metal liner, a medium sized machine, in process of production, which can carry from nine to twelve passengers, according to what is going to be required of it, with an average cruising speed of 200 miles per hour. Then there is a new and larger machine some way on now in production. That machine will carry eighteen passengers with a considerable amount of mail, has a range of over 2,000 miles and is capable of a speed approximating to 250 miles per hour. I think your Lordships will agree that as and when these machines come into use a very considerable advance will have been made in the development of British flying. It will be possible under moneys provided by this Bill for His Majesty's Government to continue and increase the assistance given for this purpose. I have tried to put before your Lordships very briefly the main purposes of the Bill. I gather that there are a certain number of points which the noble Lord sitting opposite (Lord Strabolgi) wishes to raise, and I hope that I shall be in a position to answer his questions when he has put them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl has safely accomplished his 30,000 mile flight—I understand that was the distance when he went to Australia and New Zealand by air. It would have been a terrible scandal if one of the members of His Majesty's Cabinet had been killed on board a British air liner, and I am very glad to see the noble Earl back in time to move the Second Reading of this Bill, apparently safe and sound. I gave notice that I intended to raise several questions which I think are of substance, and I thank the noble Earl for having touched on one or two of them already. May I say how glad I was to hear his remarks about flying boats. I have had a kind of bee in my bonnet about flying boats for many years. I was turning up some of my former speeches made in another place on civil aviation subjects, and I found that I was always girding at the Government to develop the flying boat. I believe it is

967
particularly suited to the genius of the British people. We have always succeeded in marine arts, and, combined with flying, I have always thought the flying boat was the ideal means of joining together the outlying parts of His Majesty's Dominions. I was bold enough to interrupt the Lord Privy Seal to ascertain what he meant by Pacific services, because I had given him notice that I wanted to ask when it was hoped to inaugurate a regular service between Australia and New Zealand. I thought that was what the noble Earl was referring to, but apparently he was referring to the project of a service, I presume, to British Columbia.
EARL DE LA WARR: It would be from San Francisco or Vaucouver to New Zealand.
LORD STRABOLGI: From Vancouver, British Columbia, to New Zealand. Could the noble Earl tell us the proposed stopping places? If he has that information I should be very glad if he would furnish the House with it.
EARL DE LA WARR: Those things are not yet settled. We are on the point of settling terms with all of the Dominions, but there are still some outstanding points that we have not yet got agreement about.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should imagine that the best way to go about that would be by collaboration with the United States of America, particularly as we are doing that successfully with Pan-American Airways in regard to flying the Atlantic. I should have thought that the obvious thing to do was also to collaborate with them as to the Pacific. We have Ireland on this side of the Atlantic and there are Dominions of His Majesty on the other side of the Pacific. I see nothing derogatory in collaborating with the United States who happen to have important stopping places on the way and also a great deal of experience of flying the Pacific Ocean, which in my experience is usually anything but pacific. I believe I am right in saying that it is a much more trying ocean to fly than is the Atlantic, because the weather cannot be forecast so readily as in the case of the Atlantic. However, that is by the way.
I must continue my brief remarks by re-stating once more in your Lordships' House the policy of the Party for which I
968
speak with regard to civil aviation. We believe that, particularly as it has to be subsidised, it should be a State service and be co-ordinated and linked up with all other modes of transport under State control; but as that is not the policy of His Majesty's Government we have to examine this Bill and the policy behind it. In doing so I wish to add my word of praise, if I may do so, to the Government for having chosen Sir John Reith as whole-time Chairman of Imperial Airways. One of the questions of which I gave notice to the Government last week through the noble Earl, Lord Lucan—I did not know then who was taking charge of this Bill—was to ask when the whole-time Chairman of Imperial Airways was to be appointed. Apparently I have stimulated the Government into making the announcement which was made yesterday in another place. From what we know of Sir John Reith and his engineering background, his energy, integrity and firm character, I should think he would be an excellent Chairman for this great service of flying. I gather that the initiative came from the Government. That is as it should be, if I may say so. It is one more step towards controlling, as it should be controlled, because we in effect subsidise it, this great flying service.
The noble Earl referred to the South Atlantic and spoke of the Lisbon service as being one link. He also spoke about surveys. I contend that the South Atlantic surveys could have been made years ago. We should not have been waiting all this time. Other nations, as your Lordships know, are already flying the South Atlantic. If I want to send an air mail letter to Buenos Aires I have to send it by a foreign air machine, which I think is not as it should be. Meantime, while we are talking about delays, I must repeat that I think there has been regrettable delay in inaugurating the whole South Atlantic services. What has been done—and this refers again to what the noble Earl said about flying boats—with regard to Langston Harbour? A large suitable base on the South Coast for flying boats is really essential, and this matter has been hanging in the wind too long. I hope that an early decision will be taken with regard to it. There is also another question of which I gave notice to the Government. I understand that it is proposed, or at any rate is recommended

969
in the Cadman Report, that there should be a separate Under-Secretary for civil aviation, and I would like to know if the Government hope to be in a position soon to take a decision on this point. I hope, too, that the Under-Secretary appointed will be suitable for the job. He will be almost unique in the present Government if he is.
I would now refer to another matter which is of very great importance to this country in the matter of civil aviation. I have also given notice to the Government chat I intended to raise this matter. One trouble to-day, for anyone making a moderate flight, say to Paris or Berlin, is the inordinate length of time it takes to get from the centre or the west of London to the nearest flying ground. For example, it takes almost as long to get from my house in Kensington to Croydon as it takes to fly from Croydon to Paris, and the congestion is getting worse and the delays are getting worse. This matter must have been apparent for years. Heston is almost as bad. The Great West Road which is the approach to Heston is becoming more and more congested. It ought to have been quadrupled in width long ago. It is one of the most dangerous roads, one of the most congested and the slowest. We have allowed ribbon building along the whole length of it. That is the way we have to get to Heston, which is the alternative to going to Croydon. There has been a great lack of vision. I do not blame this Government for it because the trouble has been growing for years. What should have been done five or six years ago—this recommendation, I know, was made at the time to the noble Viscount who was Secretary of State for Air up to a week or two ago—was to take over all the flat land round Heston for the State, as could be done under present legal powers, and make a really fine air port with an overhead railway, or a special underground railway, or a specially reserved road to Heston. That could have been done if the matter had been tackled in time.
Having put these matters, which are not without importance, to the Government, I want to refer in a little detail to an aspect of the Bill about which I take a very serious view. As I read the Bill and the speeches which have been made explaining it, I gather that as regards external services from this country to foreign countries—to all those European capitals
970
referred to by the noble Earl—apart from Imperial services, the only subsidies to be paid are to be paid to Imperial Airways and to one other company, the British Airways. I think that is wrong, and indeed unjust. It is a mistaken policy and it is unjust to existing air lines. Let me say that I have no interest in any commercial or civil aviation company, but I have given some attention to this matter and I want to make a very serious complaint to the Government regarding their policy as at present announced. Up to the time of the Report of the Cadman Committee, the Imperial Airways was the only company subsidised. The present Bill, as explained by the noble Earl, increases the present subsidy from £1,500,000 to not more than £3,000,000. I understand that this sum is to be divided between Imperial Airways for Empire aviation and British Airways, which will be the only companies operating externally from this country to receive a subsidy, apart from £100,000 for internal flying.
EARL DE LA WARR: There is one other company under a special arrangement operating to Oslo. Otherwise, in general, that is right.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think that is unfortunate. You are once more creating a monopoly. We have seen what has resulted in the past from the monopoly of Imperial Airways. This is where the injustice comes in, that even companies running existing services will no longer be able to obtain facilities from foreign Governments through our own Government to enable their services to be continued. Your Lordships have been discussing the Coal Bill recently and will be discussing it again in a few days. The principle of that Bill was payment of compensation if people's property was taken from them, and there have been loud protests—I think on the whole sound protests—against skimpy treatment where people's rights are being taken away. The Cadman Report makes it perfectly clear that existing companies with air services, if they are deprived of the support they have had in the past in their dealings with foreign Governments, will find it most difficult to continue. They are to be deprived of their good will and the assets they have built up without any subsidy in the past, and that is being done without compensation. If your

971
Lordships swallow that and allow it to go through without protest, you will deserve all that comes to you in the future with regard to coal properties.
I could develop the matter by referring to the Cadman Report in detail, but your Lordships have all read it and are familiar with it, and I am sure I shall carry your Lordships with me when I say that the Government are departing from the clear recommendation of the Report in this respect. It was never intended that British Airways should have a monopoly of external services with the exception of the one to Oslo, and in my submission it will not be in the interests of civil aviation. I suggest that smaller companies which have established services on particular routes should benefit from the subsidy as long as they are properly run and are substantial. Even if they cannot have the subsidy, if they can continue to fly as in the past without subsidies, their business should not be interfered with for the benefit of the favoured company, British Airways. In my opinion this is a great blemish on the Government's policy and I hope that it will be reconsidered.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a number of important points and I will deal first, if I may, with his last. He complains that there has been a handing out of monopolies to specific companies. Really, the noble Lord must make up his mind whether he wants civil flying to be developed on an ordered basis or not. If he says that he wishes it to be developed on an ordered basis, then I say that it is quite impossible to be handing out subsidies to a very great number of companies. It is far better to try to bring all the interests together and co-ordinate our efforts—far better not merely from our own point of view but because it is very much easier in dealing with foreign Governments. Foreign Governments are always very much easier to handle if we approach them on behalf of one large company rather than if we approach them for a great number of privileges for a great number of companies. The Cadman Report, as the noble Lord will no doubt remember, does very specifically except companies running specialised services. The noble Lord complained that we were late with the surveys which were being carried out for the South American route.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Earl will forgive my interrupting him, I hope he has not left the first point without answering my argument. Even if subsidies are not to be given to these other companies, why withdraw the diplomatic and Governmental support from them, if they are successful and well run? Let them fly by themselves.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we cannot actually stop them flying; we can only recommend to foreign Governments that they should grant permission to British air companies to operate on their territory, and we can emphasize the importance of particular services. With regard to the noble Lord's complaint about the South Atlantic service, and the fact that certain surveys are only now being carried out, I touched upon that very point at the beginning of my speech when I said that I think we all as a nation have got to take the blame for the fact that up to very lately we were not prepared to encourage civil flying with large subsidies, so that, quite naturally, we did not get the enterprise necessary for the establishment and development of these services.
The noble Lord then asked about Langston Harbour. I can only tell the noble Lord that there are very considerable difficulties with regard to Langston Harbour, not only from the civil point of view but from the defence point of view, and for that reason if it were possible to find anywhere else it might very well be a good deal better to do so. Whether or not we shall eventually have to decide on Langston Harbour I cannot tell the noble Lord at the present moment, but I can tell him that we are conscious of the need for a decision as soon as possible. The noble Lord also asked about the appointment of a special Under-Secretary. As the noble Lord knows, in general His Majesty's Government have accepted the Cadman Report and the Bill which is before your Lordships is an attempt to carry out its main recommendations, but on this particular point His Majesty's Government have made no announcement and have reached no decision.
There was a point upon which I think the noble Lord was not quite sure. I mentioned it in my speech, but I do not know whether I made it quite clear to him, for he raised it in his speech. It is the question of the Pacific service. The Pacific service is from North America to

973
New Zealand. There the intending passenger for Australia would change on to the Trans-Tasman service, a special service operating between Australia and New Zealand. I hope I make that particular point quite clear now. Then one last point which the noble Lord raised, and if I may say so I think an extremely important one—narnely, the question of routes to and from the aerodromes. On that point I would like to assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government are very keenly aware of its importance. I cannot tell your Lordships that we have any immediate recommendations or proposals to put into operation. I think on that point I would recommend your Lordships to look at the Bressey Report dealing with the whole question of the replanning of London, because that is only one side of it; but I would like to reassure the noble Lord who has raised this point that not only the Air Ministry but the Government as a whole do appreciate the very great importance of the point which he has raised. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) 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.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Conditions of employment.
1.—(1) The total hours worked by a young person to whom this Act applies (in this Act referred to as "a designated person"), exclusive of intervals allowed for meals and rest, shall,—

(a) in the case of a designated person who has attained the age of sixteen years, not exceed forty-eight in any week;

(b) in the case of a designated person who has not attained the age of sixteen years, not exceed, during two years from the commencement of this Act forty-eight in any week, and thereafter, forty-four in any week:

Provided that, a designated person who has attained the age sixteen years may, on
974
occasions of seasonal or other special pressure or in cases of emergency, work overtime, that is to say, in excess of the permitted weekly hours, so, however, that the overtime worked by that person shall not exceed six hours in any week or fifty hours in any year, and where in any year, in connection with a business carried on at any premises, overtime employment of any designated person under an employer has taken place in twelve weeks (whether consecutive or not), no further overtime employment of that or any other designated person under that employer or under any person succeeding to his business shall, during the remainder of that year, take place in connection with the business carried on at those premises.
(2) A designated person shall not be employed continuously for more than five hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal or rest, and where the hours of employment include the hours from half-past eleven in the morning to half-past two in the afternoon, an interval of not less than three-quarters of an hour shall be allowed between those hours for dinner.
(4) A designated person 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.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "(in this Act referred to as a designated person ')." The noble Earl said: There are on the Marshalled List of Amendments a large number which stand in my name. They are moved, in fact, to remove that rather inharmonious phrase "designated person." I will therefore formally move the first one which stands in my name and the remainder of the Amendments are practically all consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("(in this Act referred to as 'a designated person')").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendments that follow before we come to that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("designated")
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("designated")
Page 2, line 1 leave out ("designated")
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("overtime") and insert ("number of hours overtime that may be").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to substitute "five hours" for "six hours." The noble Earl said: I should like if I may to explain the reason for this Amendment and the other Amendments that stand in my name. This is an agreed measure, and I think that it might be interpreted as a failure to keep our part of the bargain if any of these Amendments were pressed to a Division, however much support might be forthcoming from different quarters of the House. Therefore, although I shall hope to persuade the Government that these Amendments are definitely calculated to promote the interests of the young people which this Bill seeks to protect, I shall not go beyond the utmost effort to produce that change of mind on these matters on the part of the Government. That of course is my first object. But my second is this: in this case and in the other cases to which I am drawing attention, the Government have left on one side the recommendations which occur in the Report of the Departmental Committee which the Government set up into the hours of employment of young persons in certain unregulated occupations, and I and my colleagues are exceedingly anxious to have a public statement from the Government of the reasons which have led them to substitute proposals of a different nature, and proposals of their own, for the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
It would perhaps be as well if I were to ask the Government to regard what I say as being in the nature of a preface to my remarks on all the Amendments which stand in my name and a preface which naturally will not be repeated on another occasion. The first Amendment is aimed at reducing the number of hours of overtime which are allowed under the Bill for young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen from six to five hours per week. I cannot say, personally, that I relish the idea of overtime for these young people, however short it may he. It is, I think, necessary that it should be limited to an absolute minimum, and I should like to draw the attention of the Government to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on this matter. At page 31, paragraph 105, the five members of this Committee, whose Report is unanimous, say:
976
"For young persons of sixteen and over we should be prepared to countenance a certain amount of overtime, but subject to restriction both as to its amount and as to the number of weeks in which it may be worked. We consider that the amount should not exceed five hours in any week and fifty hours in any year."
The number of hours in any year has been accepted by the Government, but they have allowed, not five hours a week, as proposed by the Committee, but as many as six hours a week, and I think one is bound to be apprehensive about the amount of continued education that would be put in by a young person who would be naturally exhausted by a long spell of overtime in any one week. I very much hope that the Government may be able to meet us on this point, and, if not, that they will state why they have decided to put on one side the very definite and unanimous recommendation of the Departmental Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("six") and insert ("five").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It is perfectly true to say that this Amendment, and the next one in the name of the noble Lord, are in accordance with the recommendations in paragraph 105 of the Report of the Departmental Committee. The proposals in the Bill have been designed to follow as far as possible Section 98 of the Factories Act, 1937, which applies to some of the young persons covered by the Committee's recommendations, and it seems desirable to maintain uniformity in the conditions applicable, for example, to van boys employed by transport undertakings and those employed in the business of a factory. The proposals of the Government in the Bill are in conformity with the policy approved last year by Parliament after the Committee had reported. It may be observed that under these Amendments an employer, to obtain full advantage of the fifty hours overtime allowed, would have to employ young persons for the full five hours in each of the ten weeks, whereas he might not need to keep them more than an hour or two in some weeks, and so the remaining hours would be wasted. I would suggest to the noble Earl that, for the sake of uniformity, we had far better follow what is provided and stated in Section 98 of the Factories Act, and I therefore hope that he will

977
see his way to withdraw this and the other Amendment which stand in his name.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I appreciate the reason given by the noble Earl, but naturally I should like to express a wish that it might have been possible subsequently to have modified the Factories Act, in order to bring young persons who are at work in occupations that come under that Act into line with an improvement in the conditions for young persons working in occupations that will be covered by this Bill. At the same time I appreciate the reason that has been given, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("hours").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I have been looking at the Amendment, and I do not think it improves the Bill. I hope that in this I shall have the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame. I think you can go too far in cutting out words, especially where an Act will have to be read and understood by all sorts of people.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: As the noble Lord has mentioned my name, I think he is right. I have not studied the Amendment before, so I have not had time fully to consider it.
LORD STRABOLGI: With that encouragement let me explain. Reading the Bill in the ordinary way, if amended as proposed it will read "the overtime worked by that person shall not exceed six in any week or fifty in any year." Six what, or fifty what? What is the advantages of leaving out the word "hours."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This has to be considered in connection with my other Amendments. Page 2, line 5, now reads "the number of hours overtime that may be worked by that person shall not exceed" six in any week or fifty in any year. If read with the last Amendment in my name the clause as I further
978
propose to amend it reads better than it would as it now stands in the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not think the Amendment is necessary, but the noble Earl can have it his own way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("hours")
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("designated person") and insert ("young persons to whom this Act applies").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "twelve weeks" and insert "ten weeks." The noble Earl said: I am not going to weary the House with a repetition of my previous argument. The only question which I would like to ask the Government on this Amendment is as follows. The amount of overtime under the Shops Acts for young persons is a maximum of six weeks in the year. Why should the Government regard it as more important to have uniformity with the Factories Acts, under which the number of weeks in which overtime would be allowed is twelve, than with the Shops Act which allows a smaller number of weeks in which these young people can be employed for a longer period than normal?
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("ten").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The answer to the noble Earl's question is that in the Shops Act it is quite true the overtime is limited to six weeks in the year, but I think it was felt by my right honourable friend that this was too short a time to meet the needs of some of the industries to which this Bill refers. However, I should like to look into that point again, and if there are any further remarks to be made upon it I would let the noble Earl know between now and the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("that or any other designated person") and insert ("any such persons")

979
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("designated person") and insert ("young person to whom this Act applies").—(The, Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "if taken on the premises, and of not less than one hour if taken elsewhere." The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which aims again at carrying out a very definite recommendation of the Departmental Committee's Report, which, in paragraph 17, states:
"We recommend, therefore, that the intervals for meals should be fixed by statutory provisions similar to those contained in the Shops Acts."
In the recent Shops Act an interval of an hour is allowed for dinner in the middle of the day if the meal is taken outside the premises. The object of this Amendment is to extend the dinner interval from three-quarters of an hour to an hour in order to cover the time taken in coming and going, when the place of the meal is outside the place of employment. This appears to be a very reasonable Amendment, and one that would actually make this Bill uniform with the Shops Act—a point I think of some importance, as the noble Earl has contended that he wants uniformity in the various Acts that deal with this subject.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, at end insert ("if taken on the premises, and of not less than one hour if taken elsewhere.").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: When last year we were dealing with other young Persons in the Factories Act—Section 98 of the Factories Act—Parliament did not think it necessary to require an interval of more than three-quarters of an hour for dinner. I am advised that this Amendment might conceivably prove to be very irksome, and it is doubtful whether it would be of any value whatever to certain classes of young persons who are employed. The noble Earl is perfectly correct in saying that we desire uniformity, and the uniformity that we desire is that of Section 98 of the Factories Act. If the noble Earl will turn up Section 98 (8) of that Act, he will see that the words used there are precisely similar to those inserted in this Bill. I cannot help thinking that it would be far wiser to leave the Bill as it is, in uniformity with Section 98 of the Factories
980
Act, of which your Lordships approved last year.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think the noble Earl is ill-advised, and I am going to call to my aid the President of the Board of Education. He knows, as I know, that young, growing people ought to have sufficient time for their meals. It is not good for their health to hurry through their meals. They ought to rest after them, especially after the mid-day meal. In the Royal Navy they are very insistent on that with the boys at sea. Seamen are allowed one hour and ten minutes for their mid-day meal and their run. The boys do not have any run, but they have the same time, and I always insisted on their not being disturbed. And they are all having their meals on the spot. In this Bill only three-quarters of an hour is allowed for young persons having their meals on the premises. My noble friend Lord Listowel wants to add a quarter of an hour when they have to go out to their meals. That seems most reasonable. I would ask the Government to reconsider this, and I would appeal to the President of the Board of Education in the matter, because I know what a strong view his Department takes on the body being as healthy as the brain.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I appreciate what the noble Lord says, but there are genuine difficulties attached to accepting this Amendment. But as he has given me the opportunity of re-examining this Amendment, between now and the next stage I shall be glad to take the opportunity.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am delighted by the assurance of the noble Earl that he will consider the question raised by this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("designated person") and insert ("young person to whom this Act applies")
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("designated person") and insert ("young person to whom this Act applies").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL moved to add to subsection (4):

981
"in the case of a designated person who has attained the age of sixteen years, and the hours from eight o'clock in the evening until seven o'clock in the morning in the case of a designated person who has not attained the age of sixteen years."
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps before moving this Amendment I might be allowed to join in the congratulations that have already been tendered to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, from my noble friends near me. He has succeeded to an office honourable but honorary. I always think that the office of Paymaster-General, which he now holds, being that which superintends the payments of salary to the whole of the public service while the Paymaster-General receives none himself, is the nearest approach in our modern life to muzzling the ox which treads out the corn. However, we are all very pleased that the noble Earl has received this preferment.
The Amendment brings up a point which I raised on Second Reading. The Bill deals with all young persons from the age of fourteen to eighteen. With regard to night work there is to be an interval of eleven hours, but some of them are allowed to start at six o'clock in the morning, and others are allowed to end their work as late as ten o'clock at night. Of course those who begin at six cannot be the same ones as those who end at ten, because the eleven hours' interval would not be allowed for in such a case. But in the case of those who begin at six o'clock in the morning at their work place, if you allow for the time of transit from their homes to their work, for a meal, and for dressing and preparation, they have to rise at five o'clock in the morning; and those who end at ten at night will not be able, as a rule, to get to their rest before at least eleven o'clock. I suggest that for boys and girls, at all events those of fourteen and fifteen years of age, these hours are very deleterious. Certainly they would make impossible all chance of continuing their education, and would leave very little opportunity for measures to maintain their physical fitness, to which importance is so rightly attached in these days, especially for young people.
The Factories Act of 1937 provides that young persons shall not work later than 6 p.m. I am not proposing in these cases to cut down the hours as low as that, but I do suggest that they should be required to terminate their work not later
982
than 8 p.m. My Amendment makes that suggestion and further suggests that in the mornings the hours should not be earlier than 7 a.m. The arguments for it have now been sufficiently stated, and I shall do no more than move this Amendment and express the hope that the Government may see their way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Samuel.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Viscount who has moved this Amendment will realise that His Majesty's Government are not in favour of young persons working either at very early hours or at very late hours, but after careful, close, and sympathetic consideration we came to the conclusion that we were quite unable to accept the Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved. I again refer him as I did on the Second Reading, to subsection (6) of this clause, which gives to the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulations further conditions for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare and interests of young persons, including conditions with respect to the daily period of their employment—that is to say, the period inclusive of the time allowed for meals and rest within which these persons may be employed on any one day.
If the noble Viscount will refer to the Report of the Departmental Committee upon which this Bill is based, he will find that that Committee did not think it necessary to impose such a drastic definition of night employment, and after considering the International Convention which is embodied in the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920, and prohibits the employment of young persons between the hours of 10p.m. and 5a.m., not 6a.m., they only felt justified in recommending the restriction which is proposed in the Bill. The Amendment does go considerably beyond the existing law which is applicable to young persons in comparable occupations. Neither the Shops Acts nor Section 98 of the Factories Act specifically fixes hours of starting and finishing work except the provisions relating to night work, which correspond to the proposals in the Bill. It is true that Section 70 of the Factories Act provides that the period of employment of young persons employed in a factory shall not begin before seven in the morning or end later than six in the evening in the case of young

983
persons under sixteen, and eight in the evening in all other cases; but although Parliament fixed these hours for young persons employed in factories, when the cases of van boys and messengers were dealt with in the same Bill no hours of commencing or finishing work were laid down, but only conditions as to night employment identical with the proposals in the Bill.
I would also commend to your Lordships' attention the fact that when Section 98 of the Factories Act was before your Lordships' House last year the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, moved no Amendment to it, and indeed the whole of that clause passed without any discussion in this House whatsoever. I emphasize again that what we are doing in this Bill is only supplementing what has been laid down in other Acts—in the Shops Acts and in Section 98 of the Factories Act—and it does seem to us it would be unfortunate not to keep the law as far as possible uniform. There is very little further I can add in reply to the noble Viscount, but I should like him to recollect that that section of the Factories Act to which I have drawn attention is one that does touch upon the employment of van boys and messengers, and when it was before the House no noble Lord made any suggestion whatever that the hours were too long or that employment started too early in the morning or ended too late at night. In these circumstances I hope the noble Viscount will let this clause go through in its present form in conformity with that section of the Factories Act.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am somewhat disappointed at the negative reply of the noble Earl, but in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The remaining Amendments to this clause are consequential, and I would ask leave to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("designated person") and insert ("young person to whom this Act applies")
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("designated persons") and insert ("young persons to whom this Act applies or any class of them")
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("maximum")
984
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("a designated person shall not") and insert ("no such person shall")
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("by a designated person")
Page 3, line 9, after ("week") insert ("by a young person to whom this Act applies")
Page 3, line 11, after ("place") insert ("in connection with a business carried on")
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("of the designated person").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Options as to application of Act]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendments to this clause are also consequential and perhaps I may be permitted to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("designated persons") and insert ("young persons to whom the provisions of this Act apply")
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("designated") and insert ("first mentioned")
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("young persons to whom the provisions of the Shops Acts apply") and insert ("last mentioned persons")
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("those") and insert ("the Shops")
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("designated persons") and insert ("young persons to whom the provisions of this Act apply")
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("those") and insert ("the Shops")
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("designated") and insert ("first mentioned").(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Records and notices]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendments to this clause are also consequential and I would move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("designated persons") and insert ("young persons to whom this Act applies")
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("designated persons") and insert ("young persons to whom this Act applies")
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("notices") and insert ("a notice")
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("of the designated persons").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Enforcement]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendments to this clause are likewise consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("in the circumstances specified in") and insert ("as provided by")
Page 6, line 17, leave out ("designated persons") and insert ("young persons to whom this Act applies")
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("designated") and insert ("young")
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("designated") and insert ("young")
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("any") and insert ("a").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Provisions as to offences]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There are two consequential Amendments to this clause, and I would move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 16, leave out ("designated persons") and insert ("young persons to whom this Act applies")
Page 7, line 17, at end insert (",and references to the occupier or owner of a factory shall be deemed to include references to the employer of those persons").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Young persons to whom Act applies.
(3) This Act shall not apply—
(a) to a young person whose hours of employment are regulated by or under the Factories Act, 1937, the Coal Mines Act, 19[1, and the Acts amending that Act, the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1875, or (except in the case of a young person to whom this Act applies by virtue of an election made under subsection (1) of Section two thereof) the Shops Acts;
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The first three Amendments to this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 16, after ("employment") insert ("in connection with a business carried on")
Page 9, line, 4, leave out ("This Act shall not") and insert ("Nothing in this Act shall")
986
Page 9, line 5, leave out ("to") and insert ("with respect to the employment of").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "1937," to insert "the Railways Act, 1921." The noble Viscount said: As no doubt your Lordships are well aware, the Bill provides that there should be certain exemptions from its provisions, and in particular in Clause 10 (3) it is provided that this Act shall not apply
"to a young person whose hours of employment are regulated by or under the Factories Act, 1937, the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and the Acts amending that Act, the Metalliferous Mines Regulations Acts, 1872 and 1875, or… the Shops Acts."
The reason for these exemptions is that there are sufficiently protective provisions in the Acts to which I have made reference. What I suggest to the Committee is that included amongst the various Acts to which the present Bill shall not apply there should be the Railways Act, 1921.
The reason why I move this Amendment is that the Railways Act, 1921, made very sufficient and adequate provision for the protection of young persons, and there is no need to deal with them, we suggest, under the present Bill. I am not going into any detail upon the matter, because it was sufficiently dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, during the debate on the Second Reading. I would only add one consideration which he did not mention but which, as it seems to me, is of high importance. As one knows, there are no people more active than the trade unions of this country in protecting their members from any injurious conditions of labour, and I am entitled to say in this House that the trade unions connected with our railways would prefer that the young persons in railway employment should be excluded from this Bill in the same way as are the persons who are protected under the Factories Act and the Coal Mines Act. That, I think, should be sufficient at least to assure your Lordships that there would be no detriment to the young persons whom we now seek to exclude, if they were not included in this Bill. That is all I think I need say. I know that the Government are sufficiently impressed with the strength of the case, and are engaged in considering it, and if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will

987
give me an assurance that this matter is under sympathetic consideration I should be willing to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 7, after ("1937") insert ("the Railways Act, 1921").—(Viscount Home of Slamannan.)
LORD ROCKLEY: May I say one or two words before the noble Earl, Lord Munster, replies? I have taken an interest in this matter for some time, and I have carefully read the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, on the Second Reading of this Bill. I have also made some further inquiry about the matter, and I understand that, as the noble Viscount has just stated, the trade union point of view is similar to the one which has been put before the Government by all the interests concerned, that it would very much interfere with the present arrangements in the railway world from every point of view if some such Amendment as the noble Viscount has suggested, or something having a similar effect, cannot be accepted by the Government. I much hope that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will be able to say that the matter is under the very careful consideration of the Government and that something can be done on Report.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment which my noble friend Lord Home has moved is one that would exclude all railway employees from the Bill. I know that my right honourable friend appreciates to the full the special arrangements in force in the railway industry for securing the welfare of the employees, including the van boys, and he is certainly reluctant to do anything which would interfere unnecessarily with these arrangements. At the same time, I think I must point out that the young persons employed by the railway companies who would be excluded from the Bill by this Amendment are in fact being employed for substantially longer hours than the standards recently adopted and approved by Parliament in the Shops and Factories Acts, and any proposal for allowing these hours to continue without any statutory restriction must of course be open to considerable criticism. However, I know that my right honourable friend desires to reserve his final opinion on this subject pending the discussions and consultations which are, I understand, proceeding at
988
the present time amongst the various parties and interests affected. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Home, will withdraw his Amendment and wait until the day is reached when these conversations are completed.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next two Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 14, leave out ("to") and insert ("with respect to the employment of")
Page 9, line 14, leave out ("by virtue of his employment").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It appears from paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Report of the Departmental Committee that a considerable number of young persons are employed as messengers in newspaper offices. The Committee found that although these boys do not work long hours they were employed late at night up to 2 and 3 a.m. and even in some cases up to 8 a.m. They also found that the work was almost entirely of a Mind alley character. In paragraph 111, the Committee felt unable to recommend an exception in respect of these young persons from the prohibition of night employment. The witnesses on behalf of the newspaper proprietors gave the Committee to understand that the prohibition of night work for juveniles and their substitution by persons over eighteen would not cause grave inconvenience to the newspaper trade and that the industry could adapt itself to the position. It is appreciated that the printing department of a newspaper office is a "factory," but an assurance is sought that young persons employed as messengers in newspaper offices, if they are not covered by the Factories Act, will come within the scope of this Bill, Clause 10 of which does not appear to cover them. I should be glad to know if the Government are satisfied on the point.
There is another small point I wish to raise. Your Lordships will notice that paragraph (d) in subsection (1) deals with

989
employment at places of public entertainment or amusement or at a Turkish bath. I can see no reason why it should be confined to Turkish baths any more than to public baths. I shall be glad if the noble Earl could give me an answer to that question.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: There is one question that I should like to address to the noble Earl and possibly he will be able to answer it at a later stage. Does this clause cover waiters—young people in the sense of the Bill employed in semi-public restaurants at residential hotels? I am thinking of railway station hotels, which, of course, cater for travellers as well as for residents, but which do not come under the Shops Act because their restaurants are not public restaurants in the accepted sense. I should be very much obliged if the noble Earl could give me an answer to that question, because I was rather afraid in reading through the clause that these young people were not included.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, my right honourable friend was advised that these young persons employed in newspaper offices are, generally speaking, covered by Section 98 of the Factories Act, but there are apparently differences of opinion, and the matter may not be entirely free from doubt. In those circumstances, if my noble friend will bring forward an Amendment at the next stage of the Bill, I can promise him that it will receive most favourable consideration from His Majesty's Government. With regard to the reasons why a public bath was not inserted in paragraph (d) of this clause, I am advised that the definition of a public bath is the same as that of a place of public entertainment. If it should be found on re-examination that there is any doubt about that matter, I have no doubt an Amendment could be found which would meet the noble Lord's point. With regard to the question of the noble Earl opposite, I should like to consult my advisers again as to whether waiters in semi-public restaurants at residential hotels are in fact covered, and perhaps he would be good enough to raise the point at the next stage.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Regulation of all employment by one employer]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendments to this clause are all drafting or
990
consequential, and I beg to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("designated") and insert ("young")
Page 9, line 20, after ("is") insert ("also")
Page 9, line 22, after the second ("by") insert ("or under")
Page 9, line 23, after ("section,") insert ("or employment").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My first Amendment to this clause is merely to define the word "agriculture". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 27, at end insert ("'agriculture' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924;").(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("designated person") and insert ("young person to whom this Act applies").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("'shop'").(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is a third drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("designated") and insert ("young").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert.
"(5) Where a young person to whom this Act applies, who in any week is employed in connection with a business carried on at any premises and in that week is employed by the same employer in connection with a business carried on at other premises, works overtime, the overtime employment of that person shall be deemed to have taken place at the

991
premises in connection with the business carried on at which he was mainly employed."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment has been put down because overtime may not be worked by young persons in any establishment for more than twelve weeks in any year. I think the words on the Paper make the matter quite clear, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, at end insert:
("(2) The Shops Acts, 1912 to 1936, and Sections four and five of this Act may be cited together as the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1938.").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I mentioned now that we propose to take the Report stage of this Bill on June 30.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, before the House adjourns it
992
might be convenient for your Lordships if I gave some forecast of the work to be done next week. As your Lordships know, we shall not meet to-morrow, but as the Report stage of the Coal Bill is to be taken next week it will be necessary to ask your Lordships to meet on Monday to deal with the further stages of a number of measures. None of them, I think, will take very long. They are all either the Committee, Report, or Third Reading stages, and there is no new Bill. On Tuesday there will be the Second Reading of the Marriages Provisional Order Bill and the Third Reading of the Air Navigation (Financial Provisions) Bill. Then we shall start the Report stage of the Coal Bill, which will be continued on Wednesday. I am afraid it will be necessary to ask your Lordships to sit after dinner on Tuesday and Wednesday, and to meet at three o'clock on Wednesday. As your Lordships will observe, the three Church Measures which were put on the Paper for consideration to-day have been postponed. That is because they only reached your Lordships this morning. It is proposed to take them as the first business on Wednesday before continuing the Report stage of the Coal Bill. There are several Bills to be dealt with on Thursday, and they will be followed by a Royal Commission. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, will ask leave to bring forward his Motion in regard to the Highway Development Survey for consideration that day, instead of on July 6 as he originally intended.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.