Lords Sitting of 9 November 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Ettrick (L. Napier)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Prayers

  ROAD TRANSPORT OF HEAVY LOADS
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state who pays for the police who escort vehicles carrying unwieldy loads along the route of their journey, and whether any compensation is payable to those inconvenienced by the re-routing of public service transport some miles off their scheduled route, made necessary for the passage of these vehicles, as instanced on the Newbury-Winchester road on Monday, 1st November.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, mobile police patrols undertake the task of escorting abnormal loads as part of their general traffic duties. In so doing, they try to reduce to a minimum the inconvenience caused to other road users. The cost falls on the police fund. No compensation is payable from public funds to anyone inconvenienced or delayed as a result of the passage of these loads or of their breakdown.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, am I to understand from the Answer of the noble Lord that the charge for these mobile police, who have to escort these ever-increasing abnormal loads from the north to the south of the country, is borne by the taxpayers of the country?
  LORD MANCROFT: No, my Lords, that is not wholly correct. The charge is borne by the police fund, and the police fund is financed as to 50 per cent.
  1200
  by the taxpayers and as to 50 per cent. by the ratepayers.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, am I then to understand that the only people who escape this imposition are those who do not qualify as ratepayers or taxpayers?—which really means that the public pay. Would the noble Lord take note of, and convey to his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, these facts? The vehicle which is the subject of my Question was 122 feet long; the load it carried was 75 tons; it was routed upon the A.34 road, which meant that it had to negotiate a gradient of 1 in 8; upon this gradient it stuck, ran backwards and blocked this A.34 road, the main road from Newbury to Winchester, from five o'clock one afternoon until eleven o'clock the next morning.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is already aware of the facts which the noble Lord has given with substantial accuracy. I will, of course, bring the point he has made to the attention of my right honourable friend. I would, however, bring to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, the fact that the load could not have gone by rail and was a load of essential importance to the economy of the country. I do not say that in any way to minimise the inconvenience which he and fellow-travellers on that road experienced. As I have already indicated, we will do our best to minimise the inconvenience, but I think the other side of the picture should also be borne in mind.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord provokes me to ask him another question. If the charge that falls now upon the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country fell upon those who are responsible for the cartage of these loads, would it not induce them to transport the loads, not by rail, as the noble Lord says, but by coastwise shipping, which I should think is the most appropriate means of travel from the Clyde to Southampton Water?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that is a different and much wider question, and one which perhaps we could discuss more advantageously in a debate on the Motion which I believe the noble Lord has on the Paper for "No Day Named."

  1201
  As to the burden of the charge, I would only remind the noble Lord of this. It would be difficult to allocate the charge fairly; this would be yet one more of the cases where hard cases would make bad law.

  MINES AND QUARRIES BILL
  2.40 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 3 [Rights of mine manager with respect to instructions given by or on behalf of owner]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "twelve months" and insert "three years". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was fairly fully debated on the last occasion, and I do not think it necessary to repeat the arguments. We still feel that a three years' provision gives a better guarantee, and we know that the organisation responsible for the miners feel strongly on this issue. The noble Earl promised that he would look at the matter again. Without putting forward further argument, I sincerely hope that having looked at it again, the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment. We feel that it will not impose a burden on anyone, and will relieve some people of anxiety. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 4, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("three years").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the noble Lord has moved that the instructions under Clause 3 should be retained for three years instead of twelve months. It is true that under the Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act, 1954, action in relation to personal injuries may be brought within three years of the date on which the cause of action arose. Although we are in the position that we regard it as remote that an action would be brought after twelve months, I canot say that it is impossible, and I cannot say that it will mean great difficulty for those immediately concerned. In the circumstances, I am pleased to accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Keeping of plans]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, here we are dealing with the question of the keeping of plans. There may be two inspectors involved, one dealing with the plans of workings and another dealing with the question of the general safe custody of documents of the mine. This Amendment is to make it clear that it is the inspector dealing with plans who decides whether any supplementary plans are necessary. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 24, after ("inspector") insert ("by whom the notice is served"). —(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question. Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Transmission to inspector, and preservation, of plans of abandoned or disused mires, seams and veins]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 5, after ("and") insert ("any").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 33, after the first ("the") insert ("last").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Limitation on number of persons to be employed at coal, &c., mines in places with single exits]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, when we were discussing Clause 34 on the Committee stage, we accepted a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, to alter the words as we propose to alter these words here. As we are dealing here with the traversibility of ways to a coal face, and we were dealing then with the construction and maintenance of roads, we think the same consideration should apply to both. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 13, leave out ("reasonable convenience and safety") and insert ("safety and reasonable convenience").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Safety precautions with respect to entrances to shafts, staple-pits and outlets]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 23, leave out ("An") and insert ("Every").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Transport rules]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 25, leave out ("powers") and insert ("power").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 39 [Provisions for securing safety of foot-passengers in transport roads]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 35, after ("a") insert ("particular").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 41 [Safety measures relating to use of vehicles]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make quite centain that certain types of safety devices are not rendered illegal by this clause. We had a short discussion on the wording of it last time, and I hope that this wording will meet with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 42, leave out ("due to") and insert ("likely to cause bodily injury to persons, being accidents caused by").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Provisions as to operation of winding and rope haulage apparatus when persons are carried]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 31, line 29, leave out ("whom") and insert ("who").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 51:
  Supply of materials for support
  (3) It shall be the duty of the manager of every mine to secure that a sufficient supply of suitable materials for support is at all times readily available, for use in his working place, to each workman who needs them, and—
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to clarify a point upon which everyone is agreed, that materials should be available to the man who is actually working at a place of work, and not elsewhere. With the introduction of the machine into the mining industry, the industry is different from what it was in the old days when we had the stall and heading, or the heading and stall, and not the conveyor face which we have at the present time. It was easy to define "working place" when we had the stall, and where a collier had the responsibility of looking after about 15 yards of the face. With the conveyor face, which varies in length from about 100 yards to 200 yards, although the filler has about from 12 to 15 yards of a stint it is difficult to define it. That is why we are anxious that this Amendment should be agreed to. As at present drafted, the words "for use in his working place" do not really qualify anything. They are merely declaratory of a place where the man is eventually going to use the material. What we want, and what our Amendment is designed to secure, is that these words should qualify not where the material is to be used, but where it is to be made available. The effect of our Amendment is to link up "available" with "for use." The material has to be readily available for use at the place which is the actual working place. We think that these are better words than those in the Bill at the present time, and we ask that the Amendment should be accepted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, line 39, leave out (",for use in his working place") and insert ("for use, at the place where he is actually working").—(Viscount Hall.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Viscount that we are in substantial agreement as to what we want. There has been a big change in coal mines since 1911, particularly by the introduction of the conveyor, which has revolutionised the whole long-

  1205
  wall process of stripping. I am bound to say, however, that I have doubts as to whether the noble Viscount's words better define what we are mutually agreed to present. I have two reasons. First, I should like to call in aid some words which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, spoke in an earlier stage of these proceedings. He said that the Bill was written in good, robust, simple English; and I say, with great respect, that the clause as printed is in better, more robust and simpler English than the Amendment. Secondly, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, also referred on that occasion to the word "reasonable", and what he said about "reasonable" applies with equal force to the word "actually." I am bound to give the noble Viscount this warning: nobody can be perfectly certain what the word "actually" will be held to mean. One thing it does mean beyond peradventure is that if a man is not working, then it is not "actually" his working place; that is quite clear. The words suggested are "the place where he is actually working," and if the noble Viscount thinks that those words are better, I shall not resist them. We think the words as printed in the clause give The meaning the noble Viscount and I have in mind: that supports shall be available to the man at the face when he strips, so that he can readily put up a support to hold up the roof and not be tempted to go on taking coal out without putting a proper support. If, however, the noble Viscount wants his words I shall not resist him; but I am bound to confess that I think the Bill is better as printed.
  2.52 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I have, of course, consulted my friends from the mining industry. They may not be experts upon the English language, but they are experts upon mining language. It is their wish that these words should be inserted in the place of the words which are actually there. I would press the noble Earl to agree to the acceptance of this Amendment. It will be very much better understood by those who will have to operate this Bill when it becomes an Act.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Very well.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, line 42, leave out ("in his working place") and insert ("at the place where he is actually working").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this again is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 36, line 7, leave out ("his working place") and insert ("the place where he was actually working").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, This consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 36, line 9, leave out ("working").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 36, line 12, leave out ("in that working") and insert ("at that").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 53 [Duties of deputies in relation to support]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 36, line 27, after ("by") insert ("virtue of").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Provisions as to support rules]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this also is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 25, after ("by") insert ("virtue of").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 73 [Means of escape from rooms in which there is special risk of fire, &c.]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, at the Committee stage we moved a new clause providing for means of escape. That clause was in much wider terms

  1207
  and fuller than the clause which existed before, and I understand that noble Lords opposite generally welcomed it. At the same time, noble Lords wished to emphasise the importance, in any question of means of escape, of having two exits. We entirely accept the importance of that point, but we thought it was covered by the clause as we had drawn it. However, in order to meet the point, we have now added the words which stand in the Amendment. I hope that this meets what noble Lords had in mind, and that it will not in any way damage the broad, general obligation which we had intended in drafting this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 51, line 1, after ("taken") insert ("(whether by the provision of two or more exits or otherwise)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 79 [Withdrawal of workmen in cases of danger]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we are dealing here with cases of the arising of sudden danger, in this case through the detection of inflammable gas. As the Bill stands, the man in charge of that part of the mine first withdraws his men from the affected area and then gives to his immediate superior and any of his colleagues in charge of other parts of the mine who may be affected notice of the danger. If we turn to the definition clause, Clause 181, we find that "notice" means "a notice in writing." It would lead to a ridiculous set of circumstances if, in a case of sudden danger, the man had to give notice in writing to his superior of the existence of the danger. We think that that is wrong in a case where time is vital. Therefore we propose to amend the Bill so that the man in question merely informs his superior and his affected colleagues. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 54, line 30, leave out ("give, to") and insert ("inform").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 54, line 32, leave out ("notice of the fact").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 54, line 35, leave out ("as").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, in the course of the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, raised the question of the meaning of the word "maintained" in Clause 86. First of all, I should inform your Lordships that we have taken out the interpretation of the word "maintained" which was inserted in Clause 181. The noble Viscount's anxiety was that it had a wider meaning that was absolutely necessary. It might have meant, as the clause was drafted, that the buildings at the surface of a mine should be newly painted and the windows and doors should be kept in proper repair, but we never had that in mind. We are concerned with only one thing, and that is that the structure should be safe. Accordingly, we have redrafted the clause to emphasise this point. I think it is quite clear what we are here intending. I hope it will meet not only the general point of safety, but the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, had in mind when he first raised the matter. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 58, line 19, leave out ("of safe construction and properly maintained") and insert ("kept in safe condition").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Paymaster General for the consultations which gave rise to the phrasing now contained in his Amendment. It is a great improvement on the Amendment which I moved at a previous stage. I have much pleasure in supporting the present Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 92:
  Medical examinations
  92. Provision may be made by regulations for requiring persons employed or seeking employment at mines to submit themselves for medical examination and for prohibiting the employment at a mine, either absolutely or in a particular capacity or in particular work, of—

  (a) a person who upon being required to submit himself for medical examination in

  1209
  accordance with the regulations fails without reasonable cause to do so;

  (b) a person as to whom it is determined in accordance with the regulations that by reason of his physical or mental condition, he is unfit for such employment or for such employment in that capacity or in that work, as the ease may be.

  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after "requiring," to insert "young" [persons]. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a matter about which we had a great deal of discussion on Committee stage. Perhaps I may at this moment say this: that I very much appreciated the opportunity of meeting the President of the National Union of Mineworkers and of discussing with him the point of this Amendment and other features of this Bill. It was certainly a great help to me. I appreciated his coming to see us. When we discussed this matter, we had two suggestions in front of us. One was the Government's Amendment, which fully met all the undertakings which my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power had made in another place, and the other was an Opposition Amendment which, if I may say so, went very much further than anything which up to then had been suggested, and was aimed primarily at restricting the operation of the whole clause in regard to medical examination, to new entrants. Both Amendments were withdrawn at that time for further consideration.
  As a result of our consideration, we now propose to draw a distinction between the two separate classes of examination. First of all, there are medical examinations, with the consequential possibility of restricting employment in the interests of the person himself—that is to say, to ascertain whether it is desirable that he should continue his occupation. The second class of medical examinations are those intended to safeguard the health or safety of others. It appeared to us that those two classes are quite different. We formed the impression that it was most unlikely that the powers given by the clause would be used for the former purpose—that is to say, for the examination of people in their own interest, and accordingly it appeared to us unnecessary to take the powers to examine what we might describe as "established miners." In the terms of the clause undoubtedly it could have been done, and I think I am right in saying
  1210
  that that was the basis of the opposition to the Amendment which the Government proposed. On the other hand, there are classes of workers whose "physical or mental condition," to use the words of the clause, would in certain circumstances constitute a serious danger to the safety and health of other workers. It is in these circumstances that the Government desire the powers of medical examination to be available. The Minister however is advised that these circumstances could be dealt with by general powers to make regulations under Clause 141, and accordingly it is not necessary to bring them in within, the provisions of the clause we are now considering.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, expressed the view on the Committee stage that this matter could be dealt with by industrial agreement. We very much hope that that will be the case—indeed, I believe that it will be. But I also believe that he will not disagree with the view that, if such agreement were not obtained, the Minister could not just stand aside in this sort of case. His general responsibility—indeed his duty—to secure the health and the safety of workers in the mines makes it necessary for the Minister to have powers of this character. I am bound to point out that when we come to regulations antler Clause 141, the whole process as laid down in the Second Schedule would be necessary—which means publication, inquiry, objections and, of course, ultimately, the possibility of a Negative Resolution before both Houses of Parliament. In those circumstances the Government are able to agree with the Opposition that in general terms Clause 92 need not apply to established miners. It is, however, felt desirable that the individual interests of young persons should be safeguarded. It has always been the cardinal point in industrial legislation, and under agreements that we have entered into under the International Labour Organisation Convention, that young persons should be safeguarded and looked after.
  Accordingly, the clause as we now propose that it shall be (I am dealing with all three Amendments in my name to Clouse 92) will be confined to young persons and will not apply to established miners. That being the case, it is no longer necessary to have the appeal procedure, and we have cut that right out.

  1211
  Therefore, the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, objected is no longer necessary and has been dropped. I very much hope that this new proposal of the Government fully meets the two separate sets of objections which were raised to the Amendment put forward by the Government on the Committee stage, and that the House will be able to agree to the Amendments on the Marshalled List, the first of which I now beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 60, line 10, after ("requiring") insert ("young").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I respond most readily to what has been said by the noble Earl. I would express to him the gratitude, not only of myself and my colleague, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, but also of the executive of the Mineworkers' Federation and of miners generally. There was a very strong feeling amongst miners against the powers which would have been given under the original clause, but now I can say without any hesitation that I think the noble Earl and the Government, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, have met the situation. We are most grateful to the noble Earl and to the Ministry for this concession. I was a little concerned about what the noble Earl said in connection with regulations. We understood that there was a possibility of regulations being introduced in due course under Clause 141. It might well be that special circumstances would arise in which, because of the dangers involved, it would be appropriate to provide for some form of medical examination. The precise circumstances in which such regulations would be appropriate, and the safeguards to be provided, would obviously be a matter for discussion between the trade unions. Within those limitations there seem to me and to my noble friends to be no objection at all to the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl.
  May I say that I was very happy about the fact that some members of the Miners' Executive were able to meet the noble Earl yesterday. We discovered that, owing to the spirit of conciliation which prevailed, there was no difficulty about our approach to all the matters connected with this Bill. Our purpose was to make
  1212
  this Bill a little better than it was, and as a result of the discussions I think there was a much better understanding, not only in connection with these Amendments but also with other Amendments contained in the Marshalled List. We know that since the introduction of this Bill approaches between the miners and the National Coal Board, and, indeed, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, have always been of the friendliest. Had that not been so, it would have been difficult for this Bill to have reached the stage which it has reached. We hope that, in the preparation of the regulations, that same good will and feeling will exist. Again, I would offer to the noble Earl and to the Department very many thanks for the consideration and understanding which they have given to the production of the Amendments which are now upon the Order Paper and with which we agree.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl and to express my satisfaction at the fact that he has got such general agreement in regard to this clause, and also to express my gratitude to him for the careful consideration he has given to the points I raised on the Committee stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 60, line 15, after ("a") insert ("young").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 60, line 18, after ("a") insert ("young").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 110 [Provisions relating to use of ropeways and vehicles]:
  3.9 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is the same as Amendment No. 9, for the quarries. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 67, line 28, leave out ("due to") and insert ("likely to cause bodily injury to persons, being accidents caused by").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 112 [Dust precautions]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is thought that the word "any" here is redundant. By leaving it out we bring the wording of the clause into line with that in Clause 74, page 51, lines 16 and 17, dealing with dust precautions in coal mines. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 68, line 14, leave out ("any").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we have already discussed this point and the necessity, where danger arises, of informing a superior. In this case we are dealing with quarries, whereas in my last Amendment we were dealing with mines. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 69, line 15, leave out ("give notice of the fact that the danger exists to") and insert ("inform").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 69, line 18, leave out ("to").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 69, line 20, at end insert ("that the danger exists;").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 124 [Prohibition of employment below ground in certain cases]:
  3.12 p.m.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) From the date of the coming into operation of this Act, no female shall be employed at a mine on any work involving the getting, processing or preparation of coal unless she was in the employment of the mine on that date."
  The noble Lord said: We put this Amendment down for the Report stage in the hope that the noble Earl would have had time to go into the matter
  1214
  again and might have changed his attitude. Previously he felt that it was better to leave it as an administrative obligation rather than as a statutory provision. It is on that point we differ. My noble friend, Lord Hall, in our previous discussion, pointed out that there are only three districts, out of twenty, which employ women on work of this kind. Those three districts employ about one-sixth—no more—of the people engaged in the coal industry. The other districts are able to provide for certain old or disabled men to be employed in jobs which women are now doing in these three districts. I thought from the remarks made by the noble Earl that he was rather sympathetic to that type of argument: namely, that the course followed in the other districts cleared the way for the disabled or aged miner who was unable to follow his ordinary occupation.
  I will not go into the question of suitability. I know the industry well and I am satisfied in my own mind that women are better not employed in this kind of work, I personally should prefer that they were not there. Is the noble Earl able to say anything more than he said previously, when his view was that the question would resolve itself in due course? He is quite right: certain people responsible for some aspects of the industry will see that it resolves itself. However, I should prefer that the Government should see their way to make suitable provision and lay down that upon the coming into operation of this Act the exclusion shall become effective. I thought the noble Earl was debating unfairly in arguing that because we said that those now there can stay as long as they want (although they should not be replaced by other female labour) we were weakening our argument. Our purpose in bringing forward this Amendment at the Report stage is in the hope that the Government have changed their attitude on the question of the employment of women in this type of work. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 76, line 5, at end insert—
  ("(2) From the date of the coming into operation of this Act, no female shall be employed at a mine on any work involving the getting, processing or preparation of coal unless she was in the employment of the mine on that date.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I rather sympathise with noble Lords opposite in regard to this Amendment. I agree it is hard to put somebody out of work by Act of Parliament; nevertheless, I hope they will get their way.
  3.15 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, we discussed this matter at some length at the Committee stage. The only point in the argument which impresses me is that the noble Lord should raise it a second time; because this House has such a high regard for the noble Lord that anything which he raises once—let alone twice—must be a matter of earnest concern to us all. I have accordingly applied to my mind, as no doubt the noble Lord has to his, the searching question which Oliver Cromwell addressed to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland more than 300 years ago. He said:
  "I beseech you"—
  and he used an oath which I will not repeat—
  "think it possible you may be mistaken."
  I have asked my advisers at the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Labour whether there was anything I had said to which they took exception, or were there any points they had to make. They said substantially what I had said: we do restrict women labour in certain circumstances, but we always do so for a definite reason. We do it where there is any question of women straining themselves. We impose restrictions where the work might necessitate the lifting of too heavy a weight. We will not permit women to clean moving machinery as there is always the risk that their clothing or their hair might conceivably be caught up and endanger them. We do it in cases where the risk of lead poisoning exists, because such poisoning is much more serious in its effect upon women than upon men. We do restrict women in such special cases.
  But noble Lords opposite have put forward no specific reason why women should be restricted from the form of employment which the Bill permits. The noble Lord has argued fairly that he would like older miners to be engaged in work which women now do on the surface at the pits; but I doubt whether the noble Lord could point to a case in practice where an older miner is available
  1216
  who could take the place which a woman is now filling. Even were it so, I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is not dangerous to suggest that that should be done because all the men engaged in this industry want it—even if it were true (which, with respect, I question) that the 700,000 miners all say they want women excluded. Are we to accept the argument that in a substantially man-run industry like this, if the men engaged in it wish, they can drive out all the women? Let us take Law. Only in comparatively recent times have women been admitted to the Bar. There are not very many at present in that profession, but the few presumably, pro tanto, take a certain amount of work from the men. If one accepts the argument of the noble Lord, if the men of the Bar got together they could say, "We will drive the women out." Is that justice? Is it fair or reasonable?
  We know that women want to work on the surface at the pits; it is the work most suited to them and on the whole they are pretty healthy doing it. Whatever may happen in industrial negotiations is not a matter in which I should interefere. But it is a very serious matter for any majority in any industry to drive out a minority and accordingly to prevent them from earning their living in the way in which they, the minority, happen to have selected. For that reason I suggest that this proposal is quite wrong, and it would be wrong for Parliament, merely because a majority in an industry want to exclude a minority, to agree. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, because I feel that basically it is wrong for Parliament to accept such a proposition.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am amazed at the noble Earl's argument that the National Union of Mineworkers have any thought of driving women out of the industry. They have done nothing of the kind. I hope the noble Earl realises that. It is not correct to say that the men in the industry want to drive the women out. What the men have said is that the women ought to go out, and that they ought to go out with Parliamentary approval. That is the end which they are trying to achieve. If the noble Earl visualises a miners' strike to get the

  1217
  women out, he is under a misapprehension. The miners have not said that they will strike to get the women out. What they have said, through their representatives, both here and in another place, is that women ought not to be doing this work. I am sorry that on this occasion I
  Clause 133:
  Form of official books and preservation and inspection of entries therein
  133.—(1) Every book which, in pursuance of this Act or regulations, is provided by the owner of a mine or quarry for the purpose of the entry therein of any report, record or other item of information shall be in such form as the Minister may direct.
  (2) Every entry made in any such book as aforesaid or a copy of that entry shall be preserved until the expiration of twelve months after the date on which it was made or such other period (whether longer or shorter) as may be prescribed for an entry of any class and, until no longer required to be preserved, shall be kept at the office at the mine or quarry to which it relates or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector and be open to inspection by, or by a person authorised in that behalf in writing by, any person employed at that mine or quarry.
  3.29 p.m.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment, as you will notice, is consequential upon the first Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 81, line 21, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("three years").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is not really consequential
  cannot oblige by withdrawing the Amendment.
  On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 43.

  CONTENTS

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Ammon, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Greenhill, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Hall, V.

  Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

  Wise, L,

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (Lord Chancellor.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Dovercourt, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

  Allenby, V.

  Foley, L.

  Devonport, V.

  Freyberg, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Furness, V.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Lothian, M.

  Goschen, V

  Hawke, L.

  Reading, M.

  Mersey, V.

  Hindlip, L.

  Monsell, V.

  Lloyd, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Swinton, V.

  Napier, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Woolton, V.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Remnant, L.

  Munster, E.

  Ashton of Hyde, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Belstead, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Digby, L.

  Savile, L.

  Rothes, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Webb-Johnson, L.

  Resolved in the Negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  tial on the first Amendment, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. It deals not with the very narrow and limited subjects which come under Amendment No. 1 but with a fantastic quantity of books. As I have explained, there are something of the order of a hundred different types of books, of which there may be no fewer than forty of one type in existence at the same time. This is a matter of some inconvenience to the National Coal Board—I have to make that point clear—but in view of the fact that the noble Lord has pressed this matter, I am not prepared to say that there is sufficient inconvenience to the National Coal Board and other mine owners to justify refusing the Amendment. There is a remote contingency that the point which the noble Lord has made might be justified. In these circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Amendment, but that does not mean that the noble Lord is "getting away with it" as if it were a small consequential Amendment.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I have no intention of "getting away with it" as a small consequential Amendment. It was my intention to move it for the same reason that I moved the other.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 145 [General powers of inspectors]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we believe that these words are necessary to clarify the meaning of this clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 88, line 8, after ("being") insert ("in either case").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 151 [Fencing of abandoned and disused mines and of quarries]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment and the next, I am assured, are not much more than drafting. It was felt that the words previously printed were not sufficiently accurate and wide. The only word to which I want to draw your Lordships' attention is "abating," which has been put in. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 94, line 37, leave out from ("quarry") to ("shall") in line 40, and insert ("for the purpose of abating, or preventing the recurrence of, a nuisance under the last foregoing subsection or in reimbursing a local authority in respect of the abatement, or prevention of the recurrence of, such a nuisance").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 2, leave out from ("1936") to end of line 6 and insert ("to a statutory nuisance and to the abatement thereof, there shall be respectively substituted references to Part II of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, to such a nuisance as is mentioned in paragraph (1) of section sixteen of that Act and to the removal thereof").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 152 [Offences]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the words in the Amendment appear to be necessary to make it clear that when the owner contravenes the Act in respect of a duty specifically laid on him, the manager and under-manager are not guilty. Without these words, there might well be some element of doubt. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 97, line 3, after ("contravention") insert ("by the owner of the mine or quarry"). —(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 156 [Defence available to person charged with offence not committed personally]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 98, line 26, leave out ("a person") and insert ("on persons").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 170, to insert the following new clause:
  Provisions as to knowledge by officials, &c., of Welsh language
  ".Where the natural language of communication of the persons employed at a mine or quarry or of a substantial number of those persons is Welsh, then, in considering the qualifications of candidates for appointments required, by or by virtue of this Act, to be made in the case of that mine or quarry, regard shall be had to the possession of a knowledge of that language."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, moved an Amendment seeking to ensure that, so far as possible, Welsh-speaking officials should be appointed in Wales. We promised to consider this point and I hope that what we have done has steered the narrow course between the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who is not here to-day. What we have said is that where the national language of the people engaged on the job is Welsh, it is in the general interests of efficiency, and, I think, of harmonious operation, that, so far as may be reasonable, the officials in charge should know the language. I think that is a common-sense approach to the subject, and that anybody who would not give any consideration to this matter would be rather foolish. I hope that this Amendment meets the noble Lord's point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 170, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I rise only to express my appreciation of the effort made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to meet my point; and having regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Raglan, said on the last occasion, I think that he does meet it. There are collieries in Wales where the percentage of Welsh-

  1221
  speaking miners is very small indeed. They appear in the main to be in the county from which the noble Earl, Lord Raglan, comes—Monmouthshire. I think the wording now meets what I had in mind. Inspectors were covered in rather stronger terms than these, and I thought it right and proper that the rest of the officials should be in the same category. They will not be in quite the same category under this Amendment, but the matter is now more or less under the National Coal Board and the Regional Boards, which I know fairly well, and I have every confidence in them. Therefore, I accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 173 [Parliamentary control of orders, rules and regulations]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Amendment is little more than drafting. Where the Minister makes orders they are exercisable by statutory instrument subject to a Resolution of either House of Parliament. The exception is in the case of special regulations or orders expressly relating to a particular mine or quarry. The exception should also apply to an order relating to a particular set of premises of a mine or quarry. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 107, line 39, after ("quarry") insert ("or a particular set of premises").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 181 [General interpretation provisions]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is to the interpretation clause. In dealing with Clause 86 on Committee stage, I said that we would omit the reference to "maintained." This Amendment fulfils that promise. Perhaps without unduly stretching the principles of relevance, I may refer to an earlier Amendment to Clause 18. In the course of the Committee stage, we proposed to leave out the definition of "bodily injury," but the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, objected, and I withdrew the Amendment. I am afraid that I have to apologise to the House for having then said that these words appeared in only two places in the Bill. I now find that
  1222
  they appear not only in Clauses 41 and 110, but also in Clauses 37 and 91, in Clauses 116 and 117, dealing with notification of accidents, and in Clause 155, dealing with penalties; and I believe also in Clauses 37 and 62. I apologise to your Lordships for the inaccuracy in not knowing the number of times on which, the words "bodily injury" appear in the Bill. On looking at the matter, I am bound to agree with the noble Viscount that the words "bodily injury" should be retained in the interpretation clause. I now beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 111, leave out lines 41 and 42.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Earl need not apologise for anything in relation to this Bill: the marvel is that he has mastered it so well. That he has made only one mistake reflects very great credit on him and on the noble Lord who sits beside him. I thought I was right at the time and I am pleased that the noble Earl has made the statement he has made in relation to this matter.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, may I also say how grateful I am that this mistake has been rectified?
  On Question. Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule [Public inquiry into accident]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 121, line 12, leave out ("the last-mentioned") and insert ("that").—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Third Schedule [Inquiries into fitness of holders of certificates and delivery up and custody of certificates in connection with prosecutions and inquiries]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 126, line 3, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Minister").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  TRANSPORT CHARGES &c. (MIS CELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  3.39 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can quite understand the desire of the noble Earl to get this unpleasant business out of the way as soon as he can, but there is one question I should like to ask him, on which perhaps I should make some comment. I do not intend to fight once again the battles which we fought so nicely and so politely on Second Reading and on the Committee and Report stages, because we shall have an opportunity of returning to those later, but I must express very great regret that the noble Earl has not seen fit to accede to what I thought was the unanimous wish of the House, or at least of three sides of the House, and implement the sense of the Amendment so briefly and so ably moved on Report stage by the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. To us it is a matter of great regret that the advisers of the noble Earl have persuaded him to introduce into legislation what I think we all thought was a most objectionable word. It appears at line 9 of page 19 of the Bill, and has reference to the fixing of fares. It says:
  "… as the authority may consider reasonable or expedient in all the circumstances."
  I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and other noble Lords who spoke, made a strong case that here was something retrograde which was being put into an Act of Parliament, and that it could be overcome by adopting language more in keeping with the language of legislation that departs from your Lordships' House. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, before he appeared on the Government Front Bench, was an eminent member of the Bar, and his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport was also an eminent member of the Bar. I should have thought that an expression such as this must have revolted their legal souls
  1224
  —but perhaps legal souls or legal consciences are put into cold store, only to be picked up again when both the noble Earl and his right honourable friend, at some date perhaps in the not far distant future, take up their professional avocations again. I utter one last protest. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will live to regret this. If it is ever cited in the future as a precedent, I am sure that protests will be heard from all quarters of the House. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, did not put down an Amendment on Third Reading, but perhaps he felt unable to do so without the consent of his noble friend Lord Teynham, on whose behalf he moved the Amendment on Report stage. I can assure him that if he had done so, and had wished to take it to a Division, we on this side of the House would have supported him. That is all I have to say about that matter.
  As to the rest of the Bill, as I have said, we have fought our battles on behalf of those who have been deprived and, so far as I can see, will continue for some time to be deprived, of the amenity of this entertainment season. I feel sure that the noble Earl is as regretful as I am that he has been unable to persuade those whom he had to persuade to bring in amending legislation. With regard to the other matter, that also can be left to be fought again at some future date.
  3.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and regret that we have been unable to do anything in regard to contract carriage, though I believe it is fair to say that there is no question that anyone will be deprived of any amenity, unless one can be deprived of something which one has not had for twenty years, which is the period of the deprivation. With regard to the first point the noble Lord raised, I may say that I did consult my right honourable friend the Minister. I told him that the House felt strongly about the matter, and I discussed the problem with him. He regretted that he could not advise the House that it was desirable to change these words. I would point out to those who have anxiety about it that the word "expedient" is not used here at large; it means "in the view of the traffic commissioner "—what he thinks expedient can be implemented. It is not used at

  1225
  large, and does not apply to the Minister of Transport at any time. Accordingly, I am bound to say to noble Lords who are anxious about this matter that in this context I do not think it can have any of the adverse effects which imagination, or possibly experience, can conjure up as being likely to follow the use of an adjective of that character. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, in the ordinary course I should have left this matter to my noble and learned Leader, who unfortunately has to be away from the House. I quite see the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, as to the particular context in which this word is used. Having read some of the cases recently in my local weekly paper in Essex, I have noticed the extraordinary variety of judgments which have been given in these matters in the past—especially in one case, which was decided without any reference to the decision in the case of Mill v. Porter or some name like that. We really need to be more explicit, and more justice should be given to those who are adversely affected by the present administration of the law and who want to make reasonable and legitimate use of road services for these activities. The present law inflicts great hardship on them, and the judgments which have been given have operated unfairly against them.
  The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was very kind about this matter and said that he would have another look at it; and I have been impressed with his courtesy in trying to make a good case this after noon. I feel, however, that if the Bill leaves us without the word "expedient" being deleted and words which are more firm and just being inserted, an unfortunate impression will be left on the minds of thousands of people for whom I know I speak to-day. For example, I am the national patron of the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs (I took the place of a Conservative Peer who passed on) who are most indignant about this matter. I am sure my predecessor would have spoken strongly about it if he had been spared to be here. It is a pity that the Ministry of Transport, with complete hardness, have just "stuck their toes in" on this question and will not move to meet what is a perfectly
  1226
  legitimate and just claim from a large proportion of the public. I wish that something could be done about it.
  3.49 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS-BURY): My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, arid I only do so to say a few words with regard to this word "expedient," which seems to have caused a great deal of trouble. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and other noble Lords on the earlier stages of this Bill. If the meaning which they attach to the word were the only or primary meaning of it, there would, I believe, be considerable force in what they say. It undoubtedly has the meaning put upon it by noble Lords—I am not questioning that—but I do question the fact that it is the only meaning; and indeed, I have taken the trouble to verify my view in the Library of your Lordships' House. I looked up the word "expedient" in the New English Dictionary which is the greatest dictionary of the language, and this is what I found. I found that it gives three meanings. The primary meaning is "expeditious or speedy." The second meaning is, "conducive to the advantage in general," and the third one is the meaning to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred, "useful or politic as opposed to just or right." I do not dispute that at all. But clearly the meaning in this particular context—I will quote the words of the clause:
  "the authority may consider reasonable and expedient in all the circumstances"
  is the second meaning. It evidently means "conducive to the advantage in general," in all the circumstances. With that meaning, which at any rate is equally as well founded as the other, the phrase is perfectly all right. Therefore I think your Lordships' House will be unwise to assume that, in leaving this word in, we shall necessarily have acted below the level of our usual decisions. The word has a perfectly respectable meaning. In point of fact, the less attractive meaning is a later gloss upon the original intention of the word, and should not be taken so seriously as it has been by some noble Lords this afternoon.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL
  3.52 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it is generally recognised that there must be certain legislation which is not regarded as permanently necessary, and it is customary to ask for the renewal of this legislation in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I hope your Lordships will accept the principle that such renewal is necessary and thus give this Bill a Second Reading. The Schedule contains the list of legislation we wish to have renewed for another year. It is the same as last year, except that we have dropped the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act. Naturally, I will do my best, if the House will allow me to speak again, to answer any question that any noble Lord may have on this collection of legislation. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
  3.53 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I hope that I may be forgiven for departing somewhat from precedent in debating this Bill upon its Second Reading. I am doing so after consultation through the usual channels with Her Majesty's Government, and it seems that it would be more convenient for them to answer my questions this afternoon than on the Committee stage. I am not going to oppose the passage of this Bill at all, but there are one or two questions that I should like to ask regarding the provisions in the Schedule. The first one is with reference to the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, Sections 1 and 2 of which are continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance (No. 2) Bill. The Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act was passed in 1934, and it was continued for three years. Sections 1 and 2 give statutory enforcement to wages agreements voluntarily entered into by both the unions and the employers. This worked well up to 1937, but then the Act was allowed to lapse. Sections 1 and 2, which carry these provisions of statutory enforcement to voluntary wage agreements, were carried on. The first question I wish to ask the noble Lord (I have given him notice of it) is: Why
  1228
  cannot this be enacted in permanent legislation? Both sides of the weaving industry are quite happy about it. They want it to go on, and it seems to me to be an unnecessary procedure—and I expect the noble Lord has a very good answer to it—that every year your Lordships should be bothered with having to pass this Bill which authorises the continuance for another twelve months.
  The other point is a little more serious: it is with reference to the Road Traffic Act, 1934, Section 1. That section of that Act brought into being the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. It was then laid down that it should go on for an experimental period of five years. Every year after 1938 we have had in the Schedule which appears in the Bill now before your Lordships this section of the 1934 Act, so that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit can continue. I was going to suggest to the noble Lord that it would be better if this section also were embodied in permanent legislation. I can quite understand the reason for it, because the whole of the speed limit provisions in the Road Traffic Act, 1930–I do not think I am using an extravagant phrase—are really chaotic. There are no fewer than fifteen speed limits in this country, all perhaps applicable in 1930, covering all sorts of road transport from traction engines onwards. Your Lordships will agree, I think, that one of the big social problems of our age is the congestion upon our roads. That congestion is due in some substantial measure—I will not say wholly—to the fact that we in this country cannot move our traffic quickly enough or safely enough. I couple safety with quickness. We are conniving at congestion through having still on the Statute Book an out-of-date and outmoded form of speed limit which was enacted in 1930.
  This is a very long Schedule, and I will not read it to your Lordships. I will give your Lordships an illustration. One section of the Road Traffic Act stipulates the number of trailers that a tractor unit can draw along roads, and the First Schedule lays down the speed at which it shall travel. A showman's tractor can draw three huge trailers, and the whole of that unit can take up 100 ft. in length. It has to travel in any city, town or village at 3 m.p.h. and elsewhere at

  1229
  5 m.p.h. I am not advocating that it should be allowed to travel at 30 or 40 m.p.h., but the mere fact that it is legal to-day for a tractor to draw such a huge load as that makes for the congestion of our roads. I have cited that as one instance. I could say, as I have said in your Lordships' House before, that so archaic are the speed limit laws of this country that if all the limits under the 1930 Act were enforced the entire traffic on the roads of this country would come to a standstill. It is not usually known that under this Statute no motor coach or motor bus is allowed to travel at over 30 m.p.h. on the roads of this country. Yet they all travel at over 30 m.p.h. I am not complaining about that, because the mechanical advances in road vehicles, in the way of braking systems, construction and control ability, especially of the vehicles which have to undergo a statutory examination, are so great that for this 30 m.p.h. limit still to be imposed on some of the fast passenger traffic on the roads of this country is ridiculous and brings the law into disrepute.
  The reason why I raise this matter this afternoon is that I should like the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, if he will, to ask his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport whether he will refer the whole matter of speed and speed limits to that excellent Committee which successive Ministers have always set up—the Safety First Committee of the Ministry of Transport. It is a Committee of which every Parliamentary Secretary has to be Chairman. I have had some personal experience of it. It is composed of the best brains in the country on this problem. No other tribunal to which one could refer the matter would be as good. Expressing a personal opinion, I hope (though it is a very faint hope) that there will be a revised Road Traffic Act in the not too distant future. I want the noble Lord to ask his right honourable friend whether he will give this Committee the task of overhauling the provisions with regard to speed limits, loads, capacity of trailers in relation to speed limits, and all those matters that are pertinent to this problem. If he will refer these matters to this Committee for their expert advice, then, when that is done, I can see good sense in asking the Government not to bring forward the provision which appears every year in the Expiring Laws
  1230
  Continuance Bill by which every year both Houses of Parliament have to authorise the continuance of the 30 m.p.h. limit. I am not arguing this afternoon for or against the 30 m.p.h. limit. That is not my argument. My argument is that that limit and all the other speed limit provisions which require radical overhaul—because this has a great effect upon the safety of the roads of this country—should be in permanent legislation. This is a serious matter. We are coming to a state of congestion in this country that I think will defy the best brains of the Ministry of Transport and anybody else.
  I saw in The Times to-day a suggestion by a well-known gentleman that we should bar motor cars from coming into the centres of cities. What are the tradespeople going to do to earn the money to pay their rates? That is one of the first points that crop up in one's mind. There are many things to be considered. Congestion is caused by archaic provisions such as these, tied up with the speed limit and these outsize loads, an example of which I gave your Lordships earlier this afternoon. If the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will give me his assurance that he will convey my request to his right honourable friend, I shall be perfectly happy on the second point I raised. Regarding the first, I feel certain that the noble Lord has a very good and simple answer.
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if I may speak again by leave of the House and deal with the noble Lord's second point first, while it is fresh in our memories, I would point out that he is raising issues very wide of those actually before the House at the moment. We are considering Section 1 of the Act of 1934, which is the machinery by which we impose the 30 m.p.h. limit in a built up area. The noble Lord is referring to that, I must admit, somewhat obsolete, Schedule to the Act of 1930 which tells us precisely at what pace we can go in an invalid carriage or a traction engine with rubber tyres, and so on. I agree with the noble Lord on that paint. But whilst the Act probably needs revising, the noble Lord's speech was directed rather to the repeal of the Act of 1930 than to the renewal of the section of the Act of 1934 that we desire. I shall certainly refer his remarks

  1231
  to my right honourable friend the Minister. I cannot answer that the Minister will refer them for consideration to any particular Committee—naturally I could not commit him to do any such thing. I have little doubt, however, that if the Minister thinks that that is indeed the best Committee to consider these matters, he will send them to that Committee for consideration.
  The noble Lord also led me to believe that he would like to see the legislation made permanent. Of course, there are arguments both for and against such a course. It is something to be able to be flexible. To-day we have a 30 m.p.h limit in built up areas. We probably think that that is about the right speed, but one can visualise a set of circumstances when 25 miles per hour or 35 miles per hour, or even more, might be correct.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If I conveyed to the noble Lord the impression that I wanted the 30 m.p.h. limit to be made permanent, then I must apologise to him. A speed limit in a built-up area I think must always be necessary. What the speed limit shall be, as the noble Lord rightly says, varies with different conditions and times.
  LORD HAWKE: Yes. I think that rather reinforces my argument that there are definite reasons for dealing with the matter in this particular way, so that, if any change should be necessary in the built-up area limit, it would be quite easy to effect it. Otherwise, the noble Lord began talking of outsize loads which is a little far away from the legislation with which we are dealing at the moment.
  I will turn now, if I may, to the question of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934. Your Lordships will remember, as some of us do, the appalling recession there was in the cotton industry in the 1930's, and how there was a great excess of machinery capacity and tremendous price-cutting going on the whole time. Wherever a majority of both sides could agree on wages, the provisions of this Act of 1934 meant that the weaving section, where
  1232
  price-cutting was liable to be particularly rife because there were many small establishments, could go to the Minister and say, "Please make it statutory on the whole industry." Various legislative and other arrangements brought about at that time gradually lifted the industry out of its rut—capacity was reduced by agreement, and so on. As the noble Lord said, this particular provision has not been used since 1937, because since then both sides of the industry have always been able to come to a voluntary agreement; there were no bad people on either side who were liable to break the agreement, and therefore it was unnecessary for them to come to the Minister for statutory powers to enforce it.
  A question one might ask is: why has the provision not applied to other sections of the industry beside the weaving section? The answer is simply that it was particularly apposite to the weaving section; the other sections have always been able to agree without it, and they have never had recourse to it. Then, why is it not made permanent? That is the question the noble Lord particularly asks. I understand that in another place in 1952 a suggestion was made that some people would like to see this Act made permanent. The Minister of the day expressed willingness to receive representations; but in practice there have not been representations, presumably because nobody felt strong enough to wish the thing to be permanent. If the noble Lord feels strongly about the matter, and can persuade the industry that the Act should be permanent, it is up to the industry to make representations to my right honourable friend. I have no doubt that he will receive them with great sympathy. I hope I have answered the noble Lord's points.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord very much.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at fourteen minutes past four o'clock.