Lords Sitting of 28 June 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester

REGISTERED CLUBS AND GANGSTERISM
2.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to deal with the danger to innocent people arising from daily battles between gangsters frequenting certain drinking clubs; and if, pending more comprehensive legislation, they will introduce an emergency regulation giving the police power of entry to a registered club or licensed café on the order of a chief constable or the Metropolitan Commissioner.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, who is not able to be here at present, because he is engaged on the Judicial Business of your Lordships' House, I beg to give this Answer, on his behalf, to the noble Lord opposite.
Her Majesty's Government share the noble Lord's concern about the problem of crime; and as regards the Metropolitan Police District my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is in close touch with the Commissioner of Police and is satisfied that the Metropolitan Police are doing all they can to suppress organised crime in the Metropolis. There is no power under which an emergency regulation could be introduced such as is suggested in the second part of the noble Lord's Question: but the police already have statutory powers of entry into licensed cafés and, on obtaining a search warrant from a magistrate, into registered clubs, as well as a right at Common Law to enter, without warrant, any premises for the purposes, among other things, of suppressing an affray.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I entirely agree with him that the police are doing all they possibly can in this matter, but are gravely handicapped by the present law, in that they have to obtain a magistrate's warrant before they can enter into premises? As a consequence, every week-end in Paddington Hospital there are places which are like a first-aid post on a battlefield; and these gangsters are terrorising innocent people. I appreciate the fact that his noble and learned friend is absent, but can the noble Earl say why it is that emergency action cannot be taken to provide the police with powers of entry on the word of the chief constable or, indeed, of the Metropolitan Commissioner?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am quite certain that the noble Lord opposite knows the position of the law as it exists at the present time. Your Lordships will remember that we went into this question most carefully, and it was introduced by the noble Lord himself in your Lordships' House on June 1. I am quite certain that the noble Lord will remember all that my noble and learned friend said at that time about the situation of the law as it stands. I am quite certain that the noble Lord will take heart from what my noble and learned friend said.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, may I merely put it to the noble Earl, in regard to this question, that, up to date, I am not aware that Her Majesty's Government have been quick enough and prompt enough, in view of the disastrous situation that has arisen? The action which the noble Earl on the Front Bench has offered us would seem to me no answer to the question of the noble Lord opposite, in his Motion to which I spoke the other day. Nor can I see that there is much validity in the suggested Bill in the other place merely examining and suggesting the control of vice clubs and night clubs in the West End. May I ask the noble Earl whether that is the only thing that is going to cover the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think that the noble Lady's intervention is somewhat wide of the Question the noble Lord asked. But she has said that

647
this is a most complicated problem, and we heard on June 1, both from the noble Baroness and from the noble Lord opposite, all the undesirable consequences. It is precisely for these reasons that my noble and learned friend gave his most comprehensive answer, which I would repeat, but I think your Lordships will find it more convenient to look it up in Hansard of that date.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor's answer did give me great encouragement; but it was long-term encouragement which cannot be fulfilled for perhaps twelve months. I am sure your Lordships are gravely concerned by the fact that these things are going on now and cannot be tolerated for another twelve months. For example, we cannot tolerate the position where a reporter of the Star paper was threatened with his life for investigating these things. Can the noble Earl say whether, in fact, the Home Secretary has given any special instructions to the Commissioner of Police to deal with this, and whether the new powers over cafés under the Street Offences Act are being implemented with the utmost rigour, so that at least we can do the utmost the law at present allows with these gangsters and crooks.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the term "licensed café", which of course means a café that is opened by licence after ten o'clock, is covered, in that a policeman can go in there at any time, as indeed he can go into a café which sells intoxicating liquor, supposing there was any reason for him to go there. But in regard to clubs the law is as I have already stated it in my Answer.
LORD REA: Might I ask the noble Earl this question? Is it a fact that no special further action or further regulation has been taken in this matter; and secondly, that his right honourable friend is satisfied that no such action is necessary?
EARL BATHURST: No, my Lords; that is not the case. So far as I know, my right honourable friend and his advisers are looking into this matter most carefully, as indeed my noble and learned friend said on June 1; and they are not at all satisfied with the situation as it is to-day.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, would it be a correct interpretation to say that the Home Secretary is most concerned about this matter but that, for reasons which we all understand, it is not possible for the noble Earl to disclose what the Government's future intentions are in this matter?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, that would be entirely correct.

PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION TO MEETINGS) BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Admission of public to meetings of local authorities and other bodies]:
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHmoved, in subsection (4) (b), after "transmission" to insert "and a reasonable charge for the copy". The noble Lord said: This provision of the Bill enables any newspaper to obtain a copy of the agenda for a meeting of a body to which the Bill applies on payment of a charge for postage or other charge for transmission. As the measure stands at the present moment there is no provision requiring a newspaper to pay for the cost of the agenda papers. That might be a perfectly reasonable state of affairs if the provision in the Bill were confined to newspapers published in the area served by the particular local authority; but the right of newspapers to obtain copies of agenda papers is quite unlimited, and dozens of newspapers might, if they pleased, pay 2d. or 4d. a copy for postage and put in a standing order for copies of agenda papers which possibly in the end would never be read.
I do not profess to know how all local authorities conduct their business, but I remember that when I was a member of

649
a relatively small one—and I am not talking, at the present, of the London County Council—that authority used to publish an agenda paper which comprised some 20 closely printed foolscap pages; and the cost of printing is a considerable item. This provision, if it is not amended, might easily involve local authorities in large expenditure which would serve no useful purpose in the end because the agenda papers probably would never be read, being ordered by newspapers on the mere chance that they might have in them some item which was sensational or otherwise provided a little copy for a newspaper. I feel, therefore, that in the interests of the public it is not improper to make provision for a reasonable charge to be paid by newspapers for copies of agenda papers supplied. Therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, after ("transmission") insert ("and a reasonable charge for the copy").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I believe that the Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved would rather defeat the object of this clause, which is that we should get better reporting of business transacted at meetings. Already a great many local authorities supply documents and papers to the Press free, although at the present moment they are not obliged to do so. In 1947 the Association of Municipal Corporations endorsed the report of a committee on publicity in regard to local government which said:
"The Association are in favour of the advance issue of council agenda and documents to the Press."
I believe it would be difficult to ascertain what (in the words of the Amendment) is:
"a reasonable charge for the copy".
These matters are already dealt with by a good many councils and local authorities and I believe it would be a retrograde step to say that a charge ought now to be made. Nor do I think that in many cases there would be an enormous demand from newspapers having no local interest in or association with the area or in matters of either regional or local interest; so that, I think, the demand would not be very great.
650
Furthermore, I understand from inquiries that no representation against this clause in the Bill has been made by any local authority. In fact, the only query raised has been in the other way: as to whether the words in the Bill might oblige people to charge postage when they do not even do so now. I would beg the noble Lord, if he would, to agree to withdraw the Amendment, for I do not think it would assist the object of the Bill, which is to secure wider and better reporting. I feel there need be no fear about costs incurred by a small authority, in view of the limited scope; and I do not think a large authority would begrudge the 2d. or 3d. required to send out the papers.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I do not want to obstruct the progress of the Bill in any way, and if local authorities are not concerned about this matter, as I gather from what the noble Lady has said, I do not propose to press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.50 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHmoved, in subsection (4) (b), to omit all words after "included". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a provision in the Bill which says that a body is to provide
"such further statements or particulars, if any, as are necessary to indicate the nature of the items included"
in the agenda papers. Then it goes on:
"or, if thought fit in the case of any item, with copies of any reports or other documents supplied to members of a e body in connection with the item".
First of all, the words "if thought fit" are somewhat ambiguous. They may mean "if the local authority thinks fit". If so, the provision is not objectionable. But if they mean "if the newspaper thinks fit to ask for these matters", then this provision would be very objectionable indeed, because the paragraph is drawn in such a way as to refer not merely to documents which are supplied to every member of the local authority as, so to speak, part of, or annexed to, the agenda paper itself, but also to items supplied to some members of a council in connection with proceedings in committee; and any provision of that kind would be completely embarrassing.

651
It seems to me that if these words are intended to leave the matter to the discretion of the local authority they are entirely superfluous, and therefore no harm will be done if they are omitted. But if the other interpretation is correct, then they would defeat the secrecy and privilege which is quite properly given to documents which are supplied purely for committee purposes and which are not supplied to the members of the body as a whole in connection with the agenda for a public meeting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 23 to 25.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: In connection with this Amendment, I should like to assure the noble Lord that the words "if thought fit" do refer to the issuing authority; that is to say, it is not a newspaper that decides whether the agenda or papers should be circulated. It is, in fact, the authority that decides whether or not a supply of documents shall be made available for circulation under the Bill. I think that that is already done very widely. Local authorities throughout the country which are already working with the Press—allowing the Press into their meetings and so on—already circulate documents. I think it would be a great mistake to try to stop, or in any way to hamper, the supply of such documents for the work of the authority and all those who are interested in it. If, as might happen, some very important report were under discussion—perhaps the report of some Commission—obviously, if it were a very costly document that could not be distributed widely it would be sufficient under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to say that it would be available in the information room or library, or wherever it might be, for the Press or public who wanted to look at it.
In connection with the ordinary documents that are discussed in local authority meetings, I think that those documents should be circulated, as they very often are at the present time. If it were necessary, and it might be under the suggested Amendment of the noble Lord, that some kind of précis or some special document should be issued, I think that might make things a little
652
more complicated for the local authority. I think the noble Lord can rest assured that, in the first instance, the papers circulated would be circulated to all those people concerned, and issued from the local authority or the operating body whose papers were being circulated, not at the discretion of any other body; and also that those papers being circulated would be reasonable. That is to say, if there were an immensely expensive document being discussed, that would clearly not come within the circulation; it would be available for those who wanted to see it. But the ordinary papers would be circulated. I think—if I might suggest it to the noble Lord—that his points are covered; and, if he would agree, I should be grateful if he would be kind enough also to withdraw this Amendment, as I do not think it really adds to the object of the Bill, that being to provide those people interested and the Press with as much information as possible about the business being dealt with.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Would the noble Lady agree to insert after the words "if thought fit" the words "by the local authority"?—because I myself was puzzled when I read this to know who was going to think fit, and it ought not to be left in doubt. If, in fact, as is obviously right, this meant the local authority, then I suggest that that should be put in. If that is done, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, would agree that his Amendment becomes superfluous, because it would rest entirely with the local authority to decide what they should or should not issue.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I agree that if there is any dubiety it ought to be cleared up, but it would need to be not only "local authority" but also "or by the body concerned", because it applies to a great many other bodies. I think if there were a clarifying statement of that kind which the noble Lord thinks would add to the Bill there would be no objection to putting in some form of words to make it perfectly clear that it is not the newspaper or any outside person but the issuing authority that has the decision to issue the document.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: In view of the noble Lady's undertaking to look at this matter again and, as I understand it, to introduce some clarifying words at the next stage, I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHmoved, in subsection (4) (c), to leave out all words after the first "report". The noble Lord said: This relates to a provision that, unless the meeting is held in premises not belonging to the body or not on the telephone, it shall provide facilities for telephoning a report to a newspaper at the expense of the newspaper. Surely newspapers are not provided with facilities of this kind for reporting everything they do; and what does this provision in fact involve? Must they have extra telephone extensions, and possibly extra tines, in order to allow newspaper reporters to telephone their reports? There are public call offices in most places which, presumably, newspaper reporters can use. It really seems to be quite ridiculous to impose upon a public body the obligation of providing facilities to be used perhaps upon one day a month or one day a quarter for the purpose of telephoning reports of reporters to newspapers, which presumably, as the noble Lady suggested at an earlier stage in our discussion, would in any event be local newspapers within quite a reasonable distance of the place of meeting, so the reporters could presumably go to the newspaper office and write out their reports there. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("report") to the end of line 34.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I rise again merely to clarify this point. I think there is no intention in the Bill that anyone should be under an obligation to put in a great many telephones, or to go to any very great expense. As the noble Lord has said, if it were a matter of local telephoning and of a local office, then naturally the question would not arise, because the reporter would go back to his local office. This, I think, is not a heavy obligation, but is an obligation of a reasonable character: that the
654
authority should have within reasonable distance, so to speak, facilities for telephoning if the reporters so wish.
It is not anything which would mean adding a great many telephones to any office. If it is a very large authority—such as, shall we say, the Liverpool local authority, or the Bristol local authority—as we all know, they have a great many telephones, and they would have any amount of facilities available there. On the other hand, if it is a small authority, then the facilities would presumably not be required to the same extent. I think it would be perfectly all right for the words to remain part of the Bill, as it is a case of providing only reasonable facilities. As I said at the beginning, the ultimate object is to help the proper reporting of the business of whatever body it is. Access to a telephone might on occasions help that proper reporting, but it is not intended to be something which, as the noble Lord suggests, would entail putting in a number of new telephone booths or exchanges, or anything like that.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think the noble Baroness has omitted to observe that this is an obligatory provision. It is a duty which is imposed upon a body, to provide facilities for telephoning a report. It is not qualified in any way, as the noble Baroness was, I think, hinting. If it said that facilities had to be afforded for using the authority's telephones so far as they were not required for the authority's business, I should not have the slightest abjection; but the Obligation which is imposed as the clause is worded at the present moment is a great deal more stringent than that. I hope that the noble Lady will be prepared at any rate to clarify this provision, so as to make it clear that the authority is not to be involved in extra expense in order to provide telephone facilities for reporters who wish to report a meeting. If she will look at it from that point of view, I shall be perfectly happy.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): The noble Lord has just said, I think, that if those words were qualified in any way he would be perfectly satisfied. I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to line 30

655
where the words "so far as practicable" appear, and to the fact that the only facilities that are to be afforded are "reasonable" facilities. I suggest to your Lordships that "so far as practicable" and "reasonable facilities" do not mean imposing a burden on the authority: they mean merely that the reporters will be able to go to the telephone, and will be charged for the use of the county council's telephone. The county council will not be surcharged for letting reporters use their telephone.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the words "practicable" and "reasonable" do not apply to the last few words; because, as I read it, paragraph (c) says:
" …. representatives of newspapers attending for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for those newspapers shall, so far as practicable, be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report and, unless the meeting is held in premises not belonging to the body or not on the telephone, for telephoning the report at their own expense".
Do the words "reasonable" and "practicable" cover the last part?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Yes, I think the noble Baroness is right there: "reasonable" and "practicable" do cover the last part. If there is any doubt about that, then again I think one might look at the phraseology, but that is the intention of the Bill: that there is to be afforded, so far as practicable, reasonable facilities for the Press, either in a local authority office or, let us say, in a Regional Hospital Board office, or wherever the Press may be—the two qualifying phrases to apply to both sets of premises.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I do not want to detain the Committee upon this point, but I think the ambiguity arises out of the word "practicable". It may mean what is practicable with the existing facilities which the local authority has. If so, that is entirely unobjectionable. But if it means practicable in the sense of what can be done—and that would imply adding to the facilities which the local authority possesses—that would be a rather different story. If the noble Baroness will look at the matter again from that point of view, and, if necessary, take some step to clear up that ambiguity, I shall be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I ask the noble Earl whether he would regard it as reasonable if a newspaper reporter were to telephone from, say, Edinburgh or Glasgow to his London office a twenty-minute or half-hour report of a debate, and were to put the charge to the local authority? Would he regard that as reasonable?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, I should not—and, anyway, he would also be out of order because of the last four words, "at their own expense". He must do it by reversing the charges or must pay for the call himself.
LORD SHEPHERD: Does that mean at the newspaper's expense or at the local authority's expense?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: At the newspaper's expense. It is quite clear—at least, it seems to me quite clear—that the facilities must be reasonable and practicable, and not—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord—anything very expensive or requiring a very much greater number of telephones put in. Secondly, any telephoning done by the reporter is done entirely at his own expense. I should have thought the words "for telephoning the report at their own expense" were quite clear.
LORD SHEPHERD: In view of the noble Lady's explanation, I now understand the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.8 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHmoved to add to the clause:
" () Nothing in this Section shall affect the power of the chairman of, or other person presiding over, a meeting of a body to which this Act applies to exclude, or require the withdrawal or removal of, any person or persons in the event of the obstruction of the meeting by a member or members of the public".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really set down for the purpose of removing doubt. It has been accepted up till now that if the mayor or the chairman of the council ordered the removal of persons (members of the public or otherwise) who were present and had become disorderly, he was entitled to do so under Common Law. However, under this Bill Common Law becomes Statute Law; and whilst there is some legal argument as to which comes first, I would

657
say that, as a whole, Statute Law overrides Common Law. The consequence is that the Bill admits the public—and, indeed, compels the admission of the public—to certain meetings and in certain circumstances by giving an unqualified right of admission and presence to both the public and the Press. In these circumstances, doubt is created as to whether, in the case of disorder, the mayor or the chairman of the council would be legally entitled to order the removal of members of the public.
If he was not so entitled and he did it, there would be a risk of his being sued in the courts for damages for assault, or something like that, which would be rather embarrassing. As a consequence of this situation, many local authorities have raised the point as to whether or not the Bill ought to be amended so as to provide protection for the mayor or chairman of the meeting, and I think that that is a reasonable thing for which to ask. This Amendment does not challenge the doctrine of the Bill—the right of the public or the Press to be admitted to certain meetings in certain circumstances—but it does record that the chairman of the meeting may order certain members of the public to withdraw or to be removed because they have been guilty of disorderly conduct; and I think that he is entitled to reasonable safeguards and protection in this respect. These occurrences happen rarely. There was a disturbance at a meeting of St. Pancras' Borough Council recently, which noble Lords will probably remember. I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I feel that it is a sensible one and I hope very much that the noble Lady will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I should like to ask the noble Lord one question on this Amendment. I think it is obvious that an Amendment for this purpose ough to be included in the Bill: it seems entirely proper. But is the wording right? The object of the Amendment is that if somebody causes an obstruction or makes a row, the mayor or chairman should be able to order that person to be removed. But on the words, which are
658
completely general, it looks to me as if the chairman could order the chamber to be cleared, just, as a Judge can say in the High Court, "If I have any more laughter or disturbance in court, I shall order the court to be cleared." Surely that is not the noble Lord's intention? He merely wants to get rid of the people causing the obstruction.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It depends on the circumstances. If the obstruction is limited in the number of persons causing it and they are easily identifiable, the mayor or chairman would order the removal of those persons, but sometimes the disturbance can be much wider, as I think, speaking from memory, the St. Pancras Borough Council's disturbances were. They arose out of a proposal for differential rents and some political people, whom I know very well and do not approve of, brought a crowd of tenants up to the Town Hall. In those circumstances, I should have thought it reasonable for the Mayor to say that he would clear out the lot, as would be said in a court of law.
The court of law is acting under Common Law practice, as is Parliament. Visitors are allowed in Parliament by courtesy and consent. I forget the practice in your Lordships' House, but in another place, if a Member gets up and "spies strangers", all have to go. I do not think that this would be right vis-à-vis local authorities. I must say that I think it is a little quaint in another place, but it is "an old Spanish custom", so to speak, and they get away with it. The custom is rarely abused, and I should not like to quarrel with it. But I think that a mayor or chairman should have discretion to pick out one or two people creating a disturbance or, if the disturbance is widespread, to clear out the lot. If the disturbance were confined to one or two people, and the chairman did clear the lot out, including the Press, he would be subject to grave criticism, and I do not think that it would be repeated. I do not think that the noble Earl need be apprehensive about the wording of the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am entirely in sympathy with the noble Lord's Amendment, but after discussing the matter with the various people concerned, there are one or two points that I should like to make to him, to see

659
whether or not we might not be able to improve the Amendment with further consideration. As the noble Lord has said, under Common Law any body has the right to deal with anyone obstructing its statutory business. I am told that the wording of the Amendment restricts the meaning of the word "obstruction". For instance, if somebody threw a shower of leaflets down upon a meeting, it might obstruct the business but it would not be covered by the Amendment, whereas it would be covered by the words in the Bill as it now stands. In certain respects, the wording of the Bill is wider than the Amendment. There are many ways in which people can obstruct business besides making, a row—for instance, by letting off a squib or doing some other childish thing.
I would ask the noble Lord whether he would agree to this suggestion: that, while accepting his Amendment in principle, we should look at the wording to be sure that it covers all kinds of obstruction. As it is, under Common Law there may be a broader base for the chairman to work on. I understand that there is no doubt that the present wording of the Bill does not remove the power of expulsion by the chairman who is conducting the business. I should like to take the principle of his Amendment, which is supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and see whether we can widen its scope.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Could the noble Lady indicate the words in the Bill which, in her judgment, pare more satisfactory or wider than my Amendment, which she thinks would narrow the wording of the Bill?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: The Amendment would not cover anything except obstruction.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Where does the Bill cover it?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Perhaps I could help on this point. The Amendment, as drawn, covers obstruction only, and it might help if my right honourable friend could be advised that it would be right to put in some wider words. We do not want to jeopardise this Bill. I can say that the Government are considering this matter and hope to be able to bring forward words which will be
660
acceptable to the noble Lord opposite and to your Lordships. What matters is what the courts would say about Clause 1 (4) (c). If one turns to the first lines there, one sees that the Bill says that a
"body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting."
It is what the courts might say about that phrase that needs considering. We do not intend that it should override the statutory power of the meeting to conduct its business properly. There is sometimes this conflict between law and order. There was a relevant paragraph that I noticed the other day in the Corfield Report. Law is apt to pay no regard to order and sometimes dictators, in their love of order, are apt to pay no regard to law. One must keep a balance here. What I want to warn your Lordships about is that it is quite likely that, when the draftsmen and the legal advisers have been to work on this provision, we may be able to persuade your Lordships that it is better to leave this to Common Law practice than to put extra words into the Bill. But perhaps we might leave the matter until the Report stage, when we will come back to it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What I could not follow was the noble Lady's argument that this Amendment was rather restricting the power to exclude persons. The words that the noble Earl opposite has quoted make it quite clear that this confers an absolute statutory right on members of the public and the Press to be present. Therefore the problem of getting them out, if there was a disturbance, would be a difficult one. I think the noble Lady was rather badly briefed on an important point, because she cannot find words in the Bill, as drafted, which enable the presiding officer to exclude members of the public who misbehave themselves. We all live and learn. Is not this Amendment the best way out of this? I want to see something done about this, because I think the Bill overrides the Common Law right of the chairman to act.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am told not. I am told that the Common Law right still remains and that the chairman can take action.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: With great respect, I am not a lawyer,

661
but I have handled a lot of law in my time, and I very much doubt it. I admit that whether Statute Law overrides the Common Law can be subject to argument. But this is a specific right proposed to be conferred by Statute. I cannot see how the chairman can exclude the public under a Common Law right when it is recorded in the Bill that
"the body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting".
I do not want them to exclude members of the public from meetings, unless the public, or some of them, misbehave themselves. Surely, if a tomato is thrown at the mayor, or the chairman of the meeting—or the chairman of the housing committee, in the case of St. Pancras—that must be obstructing the business of the council. Even the throwing down of leaflets from the gallery is obstructing the business. Anyway, there are no two views about that in the other place, because directly these chaps try to drop down leaflets the attendants are after them with extraordinary swiftness and efficiency; and out they go. But that is Common Law, apparently. The other place and this House are powerful bodies and can do that as they like; but not so with the local authority.
The noble Baroness brings in this Bill, which says that the public cannot be put out, and she is now arguing that the Common Law says that they can be put out. The truth of this is that this is a clumsily drafted Bill, and somebody has been very wicked in getting two Parliamentary maidens to handle it, one in the House of Commons, in a maiden speech, and the noble Lady in this House, soon after she has become a Member. I think it is disgraceful conduct on the part of someone that he should have landed this questionable Bill on two nice ladies, yet nevertheless, in the Parliamentary sense, maiden and innocent ladies. That is why we have this argument of the noble Lady. I do not blame her; many Ministers might well slip up like this if they were not properly advised. I wonder that the Solicitor General, who I understand had something to do with the drafting, has not put her right on the point. I cannot believe that Common Law rights remain when the Statute Law is o specific.
The noble Earl opposite has been most reasonable, as indeed the noble Lady tried to be; but the trouble is that she
662
has been wrongly briefed. I see that there may be a point in the argument. What I suggest is that the Committee should accept this Amendment, on the understanding that the Government will look at it again and see whether it needs to be further amended on the Report stage or on Third Reading. But I should like to be sure that I am going to get something and I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment to-day. In that event I shall not be surprised if, on the Report stage or on Third Reading, the Government or the noble Lady put forward another Amendment to amend the words that I have suggested.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not want to prolong this discussion or to be unreasonable, but there are two things I should like to say on what has been said by the noble Lord opposite. I rush to the defence (I hope I shall not embarrass her by so doing) of the noble maiden Lady. I should like the noble Lord opposite to remember this: that no rights are being given to the public by this Bill to do more than listen. We are not giving them the right to take part in the proceedings, to obstruct proceedings, to smoke in the gallery or anything else like that, but are giving them merely the right to listen to the proceedings. I think the noble Lord rather overstated the case on the question of their rights. They have rights to attend and listen to what is going on, but the body also has statutory rights to do its business. If anything done by the people who have rights to listen prevents the statutory body from doing its business, which by Statute it must do, then I very much doubt whether any court could possibly hold that that body was not within its rights (I am using a lot of "rights") in getting rid of those people who were disturbing or obstructing the proceedings or causing a nuisance.
I would only add this comment. My right honourable friend and his legal advisers have agreed to look at and consider this point carefully before the Report stage, and to come back. But I do not want to go so far as to say that we think extra words are needed. We may be able to put forward a cogent argument by a legally trained person—and I am not a legally trained person—to explain this difficult matter of

663
Common Law and Statute Law. It may be all right, in fact—I do not know—but we shall have to convince your Lordships that it is all right. Otherwise, if we cannot do that, we will try and produce some words which will make it abundantly clear to everybody. I do not think we can go further than that.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I should have thought that the noble Earl could have agreed to my course of letting this Amendment pass and then amending it on the Report stage or the Third Reading. I follow his argument: that he thinks the right to exclude disturbing members of the public would remain, and he believes that the courts would so rule. But none of us can do more than guess at what the courts might rule, and in this case I find guessing extremely difficult. Sometimes the courts may be influenced by the spirit of a Statute, but on other occasions they may be influenced by the letter of a Statute. I do not criticise the courts, who sometimes have a difficult job, but I should have thought that they would be entitled to say, under the wording of the Bill as it stands, that there is no right to exclude the public, in the sense of turning somebody out who misbehaved himself.
First of all, it is provided in Clause 1 (1) that the meeting shall be open to the public. Then there is a further specific statutory direction that
"while the meeting is open to the public, the body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting."
I should have thought that that was specific and direct, and that the courts would have difficulty in ruling other than that the presiding officer had no right to interfere. Therefore, I should prefer this Amendment to go in. But if the noble Earl (who, I agree, has sought to be reasonable about it) feels deeply that it would embarrass him, perhaps the Government could think up an Amendment to my Amendment. If that is so, then I will seek leave to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the Clerks of the Table take notice that I wish it to be put down for the Report stage, so as to protect me, and also that the noble Earl will do his best to find words which will meet the substantial point I have made and which
664
will be a reasonable protection for the presiding officers of local authorities.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am obliged to the noble Lord, who is always so eminently reasonable. I am advised that it would be far easier for our draftsmen to draft an Amendment than to amend the noble Lord's Amendment. If the noble Lord, with that assurance, would withdraw his Amendment, I undertake either to produce another Amendment or a cogent explanation of why one is not needed.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: On the basis that my Amendment appears on the Order Paper on the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD REA: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I make one small point? If I understood him aright, at one point he said he was moving this Amendment on behalf of some body. I think that that was probably a slip of the tongue and he meant with the support of, or at the request of. A Member of this House does not put forward anything on behalf of some body. This is just for the record.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is "a new one on me". The noble Lord has been here longer than I have and, on the assumption that he is right, I will say, "at the request of". I happen to be President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and it was natural that they should approach me in the matter. It is not so bad as I have heard in another place, when I once heard an honourable Member say, "Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the railway company which I represent." I followed him and condemned his phrasing as impudence, whereupon I was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, who said, "Such language must not be used in the House and the honourable Member must withdraw". I nearly fell through the floor; but before doing so I did withdraw the words. So one lives and learns, even at my advanced age.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Application of Act, and consequential provisions
2.—
(3) Any body established by or under any Act may be added to the Schedule to this Act, and any body so added may be removed from the Schedule, by order of the appropriate Minister made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and for this purpose the appropriate Minister is, in the case of any body, the Minister of the Crown in charge of the Government department concerned or primarily concerned with the matters dealt with by that body, but an order made under this subsection by any Minister of the Crown shall be effective, whether or not he is the appropriate Minister.
3.33 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHmoved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes to a point of principle with regard to delegated legislation. I admit straight away that I have handled a great deal of delegated legislation in my time. The Bill provides that a Minister, by administrative order, can extend the Bill to public authorities which are not named in it. I think that that is going rather far. If the Minister wishes to extend the provisions to other statutory authorities, it should be done by legislation, openly, honestly and legitimately, so that Parliament has every chance of considering in what circumstances it would grant that new power. Indeed, the Bill has gone further than that by providing that the order can be upset only by the Negative Resolution procedure; the Minister does not even have to provide Affirmative Resolution procedure. I think this is very had. I should prefer the power to extend it to other public authorities to be different altogether. I think that what is provided in the Bill is unreasonable, and if other public bodies in the future—which I admit may arise—are desired to be brought in, they ought to be brought in by a separate Statutory enactment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: After the delightful remarks of the noble Lord opposite as to my competence, I should like to say that the two Amendments, Nos. 5 and 6, are both on the same
666
subject. The point of making it possible to add any bodies to the Bill is simply that since the 1908 Act, which we are replacing, great numbers of authorities have been set up and one wants to make some provision for the future. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be better if the additions to the Bill were subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, which he suggests in his second Amendment—something which could be debated in both Houses of Parliament and decided perfectly straightforwardly, either Yes or No; it would be recommended on that principle. I agree with the noble Lord that that would be the way to do it. I think it would be a mistake to cut out the opportunity of adding to the Bill any new bodies that may be formed in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. How long this legislation will last I do not know. I agree with the noble Lord that it should not be done except by some straightforward method, such as he suggests in his second Amendment. I should hope that we might consider that as the best method of doing it, and that he might withdraw his first Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I gather from the noble Baroness that the purpose of this provision in the Bill is to provide for bodies which may be set up in the future, pursuant to some new Statute which is passed. That, indeed, I thought, was the object of it, because if one looks at the Schedule to the Bill one finds it is perfectly clear that somebody has gone over all the bodies which now exist and has brought as many as possible of them into the Bill. Surely the right course to adopt is to pass the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend and if in the future some Bill is introduced for the purpose of creating new public bodies, that Bill should be the vehicle for applying the provisions of this Bill if it becomes a Statute. That is the proper method and the proper occasion to deal with the matter, and not by a prospective and hypothetical provision in the present Bill.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: There is a great deal in what my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch has said. Usually when new public authorities are created a Parliamentary Bill is necessary, and it can then be provided that this Bill will apply to the new public authority. I have a great deal of

667
sympathy with what my noble friend said, and I should have preferred the noble Lady to accept my Amendment No. 5, which would have made that necessary. I do not think it is too unreasonable. The noble Lady has been helpful and reasonable about the way out of this difficulty. She does not wish to accept Amendment No. 5 but is, I gather, willing to accept Amendment No. 6, which would make it necessary for the addition of new bodies to be by Affirmative and not Negative Resolution procedure: that is to say, the onus would be on the Government to get the power, and not upon the Opposition or some Back-Bencher to move a Negative Resolution. In all the circumstances—although I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend and a great deal of sympathy with myself in moving this Amendment—I propose to ask the permission of the House to withdraw this Amendment, and then I will formally move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I beg to move this Amendment, and in view of what the noble Lady said I hope and anticipate that she will be able to accept it. In all the circumstances I leave it at that and beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out from ("instrument") to ("House") in line 37 and insert ("but a statutory instrument made by a Minister under this section shall be of no effect unless it is approved by resolution of each").—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I have great pleasure in accepting this Amendment, which I think greatly improves the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule:

BODIES TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES
1. The bodies to which in England and Wales this Act applies are—
(c) standing joint committees (for police) of the quarter sessions of a county and the county council, watch committees of borough council and combined police authoririties constituted under the Police Act, 1946:
668
(g) regional hospital boards constituted under section eleven of the said Act of 1946;
3.41 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHmoved, in paragraph 1 to omit subparagraph (c). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which is in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude from the scope of the Bill police authorities, the aim being to exclude watch committees of boroughs, standing joint committees of counties and joint police committees in Scotland. I hope that this proposal will commend itself to the House, because I think that on reflection noble Lords will see, and I hope the noble Lady will see, that police authorities are of such a nature that there ought not to be a statutory right for the presence of the Press and the public.
I will give one or two examples. Suppose a police constable or sergeant or other officer is subject under the discipline code to a charge of irregular conduct, even perhaps of dishonesty; they may be charges of a minor character or they may be charges of a serious character. It may be, however, that at the end of the day he is adjudged by the committee to be not guilty and is discharged—not discharged from the force, but discharged from the charge. In that case it would be unjust, I suggest, that the police officer should go through the embarrassment and painful experience of being publicly charged, hearing his case argued about by the members of the police authority and probably the chief constable taking his part. If he is found innocent the case is still reported, and his neighbours are going to be inclined to say, "There's no smoke without fire"—or "fire without smoke", whichever is the right way of putting it. Consequently the man is hurt. The other point is that from time to time crime, or particular crimes, may be discussed without prejudice to the responsibility of the chief officer of police, and it might be a great advantage to the criminal community if there were to be reports about it. I admit that there are differences in practice between police authorities and that the frequency of such situations arising may be limited, though the case of disciplinary charges against officers can be fairly common.

669
I think that the noble Baroness, on reflection, will agree that in view of the nature of their work and their duties police authorities ought not to be included within the scope of this Bill, which would involve the presence of the public and the Press at their meetings. I think that that is wrong. It may be said that there ought to be no meeting of a public authority or character where the Press should not be present, but on the Second Reading I gave the example of Select Committees of Parliament, where the public quite often is not present. At the proceedings of the Metropolitan Police the public is not present. I do not know who meets, but I imagine there is some board of the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioners. I know there are meetings now and again between the Commissioners and others and the Home Secretary. It would be fun to have the Press present, able to report proceedings at these private meetings between representatives of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary.
I do want to put it to the House that it is wrong to treat the provincial police authorities one way and the Metropolitan Police, because it is under the Home Secretary, in another way. It is usual that London is treated worse than any other city—that is one of my grievances. But this is a case where it is proposed that every other city should be treated worse than London; there is no proposal that at certain gatherings of the Commissioners of Metropolitan Police the Press and public could be present. I hope the noble Baroness, continuing the reasonable attitude she adopted on the last two Amendments, will be good enough to see her way to accept this one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
LORD CLITHEROE: I said a word on this matter on the Second Reading, and I should now like very strongly to support the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has put before the House. The duties of standing joint committees and watch committees are very onerous and important; but they also from time to time are bound to deal with matters which it is much better should not be disclosed to the public. The illustrations which the
670
noble Lord has given are very good ones, but there are other matters which come before standing joint committees and watch committees which it would be equally undesirable to have publicised and made generally known. This is an exceptional case and I think it is therefore reasonable that an exception should be made for it. I hope that the House will agree. I feel sure that the noble Baroness appreciates the importance of it and I hope she will accept the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I have great pleasure indeed in accepting the proposal to exclude police authorities from the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has two other Amendments down on the subject of the police, Nos. 9 and 10. While we are debating No. 7, as the other two Amendments also deal with this matter, perhaps I may say in connection with them that I am entirely in favour of them and I think they are very aptly put. I had intended myself to do this very thing if the noble Lord had not already done so. I am very glad indeed to accept these Amendments. The police authorities are rather complicated affairs because there are so many different kinds of bodies, standing joint committees, the police authority under the county and the county borough and so on. But as long as the Amendments cover all of them, I think we must treat them all the same, and I would be in favour of excluding them all.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: To round off the happy party, perhaps I might say, before the question is put, that the Government are also agreeable to the noble Lady's accepting these Amendments and feel that the Bill would be improved. The exclusion of the police authorities from the Schedule of this Bill will not prevent a police authority, if it sees so fit, from carrying on what may have been its practice in the past and having the public or Press admitted to its meetings. I thought I would just make that clear. Some standing joint committees have regularly had the public and the Press at their meetings. The standing joint committee on which I used to sit myself in Somerset always did. There will be nothing to prevent that from continuing, and I am glad the noble Lady has accepted the Amendment.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I agree with the noble Earl in what he has just said. If a police authority has had the custom of letting the public and Press in, or wishes to do so, so far as I understand it under my Amendment it would not be prevented from doing so—whether I agree with that or not, that would be their business. A local authority could have done that in respect of committees. May I say I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the kindly way in which she has accepted this Amendment. If this Amendment is accepted by the Committee, when we come to Nos. 9 and 10 I will move them formally, because the noble Baroness has already indicated she will be pleased to accept them. I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.50 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR, moved in paragraph 1, to add to sub-paragraph (g):
Page 5, line 28, at end insert ("but only so far as regards the exercise of their executive functions;").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows naturally upon the last Amendment which the noble Lady has so graciously accepted. If your Lordships will glance at the Schedule you will see that sub-paragraphs (g) and (h) cover regional hospital boards and executive councils for the health services. Regional hospital boards are the employing authority for the specialists, and executive councils are the employing authority for the general practitioners. It is necessary from time to time for both authorities to deal with their employees in exactly the same way as, in the cases expounded by my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, a watch committee or a standing joint committee has to deal with an erring constable. This is not some major breach of medical etiquette or behaviour which is required to be dealt with by the General Medical Council, but merely a matter arising in the ordinary day-to-day administration of the National Health Service. In such cases the employing authority must, quite rightly, deal with its employees, whether they be general practitioners or specialists, but it would be quite wrong that in so dealing with them it incurred for the employee concerned all the odium of publicity.
Sub-paragraph (h), applies to local executive councils
"only so far as regards the exercise of their executive functions".
The British Medical Association, on behalf of the doctors, examined these two sub-paragraphs of the Schedule and reached the conclusion that the object of this particular phrase was to exclude from the operations of the Bill, and the consequent publicity which would be inevitable, the minor or ordinary disciplinary proceedings between the employing authority and employees—in this case general practitioners. They therefore suggested that it would be logical and sensible to include exactly the same provision in the previous section of the Schedule—namely, that dealing with regional hospital boards.
It is fair to say that the phrase "local executive council" does not mean anything in particular; it was simply a phrase intended to cover the work of looking after and paying general practitioners. Regional hospital boards are also executive in exactly the same sense. Both these bodies are appointed by the Minister; both are paying out money collected through taxation and not raised locally; and both are in fact executive bodies. I should say that the British Medical Association have sought legal advice and they are advised that the situation with regard to local executive councils under the Bill will be as I have described it and they therefore feel that it ought to be the same for regional hospital boards. If they and I have misinterpreted this provision we should be glad to have the matter clarified. We do however want to make sure that unwelcome unpleasant and unnecessary publicity is not focused on people dealing with minor disciplinary corrections which have to occur in any service, either in the case of local executive councils or regional hospital boards. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Taylor.)
3.55 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am not sure that there is not some slight misunderstanding with reference to this Amendment, and also as to the purposes of these two sub-paragraphs in the Schedule. The executive councils, not

673
the regional hospital boards, as I understand it, have two main functions under the National Health Service Act. The first is an administrative function which is already covered by this Bill, in that they are administering medical, dental and pharmaceutical services. Their second function is as a tribunal, when they are dealing with disciplinary or other matters; and in regard to this function they do not come under this Bill: they come under the Tribunals Act. Therefore, so far as disciplinary powers and so on are concerned, the executive councils already come under the Tribunals Act and not under this Bill, although administratively they come under the Bill. The regional hospital boards are different. They do not come under any tribunal at all they are already within this Bill, and are already covered by the Act of 1908 which applies to their meetings. The Press already attend their meetings, and they do not, as I say, function at all as a tribunal or under the tribunal regulations.
The existing Bill does not alter that position in any way, and if there are times when the regional hospital boards have before them matters which are private and which they need to deal with, they can invoke the First Schedule to this Bill and Clause 1 (2), and they can pass a resolution which would enable them to deal privately with any private matter. That would be quite in order. I am advised that it would be a retrograde step to withdraw the regional hospital boards from the Bill because the arrangements there are already quite satisfactory. The public is interested; the business is a matter of interest to the public. They already allow the Press in, and everything has worked quite smoothly. They have no divided authority. They do not come under two Acts. They come simply under the one Act.
I think it would be a mistake to put them in the same category as the watch committees and police committees with which we have been dealing, because their function is to run the regional hospitals. That is a function in which the public are deeply interested, and I should think that for nine-tenths of the time they are dealing not with private matters, such as disciplinary matters in connection with doctors or nurses, but
674
with matters in which the general public as a whole is deeply interested, and in which we should want the general public as a whole to take an interest. Therefore I think it would be a retrograde step, and a mistake, to treat them in the same way as the watch committees, who as to probably nine-tenths of their business are dealing with private matters and perhaps with only a very small proportion of matters in which the public would be able to take any active part, so that, as has been rightly suggested, it would not in any way hurt anybody's feelings if they were not allowed in.
I should hope that Lord Taylor would see that it is of advantage to the regional hospital boards to be part and parcel of this Bill, in that they are dealing, for the great proportion of their working time, with matters which are of the greatest interest to the public, to patients and to everyone, and only on rare occasions with matters when the public would be required to be excluded. On those rare occasions I should hope that the clause in the Bill which enables that business to be dealt with privately would be invoked, and that the business would be dealt with privately. I hope that Lord Taylor and the British Medical Association, or whoever has been considering this matter, will look at this matter from the point of view of the importance of keeping the general public informed about the regional hospital boards and the work they do, and that they will not wish to close the door on them and treat them as though they were police or watch committee authorities. Obviously, they are in a quite different category altogether. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, whether, having considered that, he will withdraw his Amendment, because I believe that any fears he may have in connection with private business would be covered by Clause 1 (2) of the Act.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose which my noble friend has expressed in moving his Amendment, but I doubt whether it would achieve his purpose. I may be mistaken about this. But I am under the impression that disciplinary matters are a part of the executive functions of a regional hospital board. If that is so, then the Amendment would not prevent such proceedings from being

675
open to the public. I agree that it would be very objectionable if they were, for reasons which have already been expounded this afternoon. Perhaps the real remedy is to remit matters of that kind to a committee of the regional board which would meet in private. At the moment, of course, that is the practice of local authorities in dealing with disciplinary matters.
LORD TAYLOR: I think it is only fair to say that I did not for a moment suggest excluding the Press from meetings of regional hospital boards; and the noble Lady should not suggest that I did so. I happen to think that that is completely pointless. I have been a member of a regional hospital board and I never saw any of their proceedings reported anywhere. The newspaper used to send a junior reporter along, to learn the job, but the meetings were so intolerably dull that I cannot blame the reporters for not reporting them or the Press for not printing the reports. A large part of this Bill is out of this world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has treated bodies which are executive bodies, spending Government money, as though they were public rate-paying bodies. I did not raise this question, although I was going to do so. But since the noble Lady has done so, I will say that I do not think the public should be at meetings of regional hospital boards, because those boards are agents for Her Majesty's Government and are answered for in another place and in this House; and it is from there that the money comes for them to spend. To say that executive jobs are better done with the Press present is complete rubbish. Anyone who supposes he could run a public company with the Press attending the board meetings is "off his head", and yet that is precisely what this Bill does in regard to regional hospital boards and local executive councils. I will tell the noble Lady that I think she is 100 per cent. wrong.
676
It is desirable that the public should know about the work of regional hospital boards, and it is proper that there should be a decent Press officer, and that the chairman, and the chairmen of committees, should hold proper Press conferences from time to time whenever there is anything worth saying, when they can be examined. As for formal reports from committees, most of which are taken completely formally because the Press is there, the whole thing is a farce. To return to my modest and humble Amendment, the noble Lady has given a very reasonable answer to it. I wish that she had not gone off the rails in defending something which I had not attacked, but which I have now attacked. She said that local executive councils are also tribunals, and can function as tribunals, and that regional hospital boards do not. She said also that regional hospital boards can go into committee. I consider that those are perfectly reasonable answers. I thank her for them and it is with great pleasure that I now beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert—
("(other than police authorities)").—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 36, at end insert—
("(other than joint police committees constituted under the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956)").—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

OFFICES BILL
4.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, this Bill was fairly fully discussed on Second Reading, when I had the honour of explaining its provisions to the House, so that I do not think it is necessary for me to make a speech on Third Reading. I understand that Amendments are to be moved. I will content myself by moving that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment.
Clause 5 [Notification of accidents]:
EARL BATHURSTmoved, at the beginning of subsection (1) to insert: "Subject to the provisions of this section". The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 go together and it may be to your Lordships' convenience if I speak on them both at the same time. Clause 5 provides for the notification—in a prescribed form and with prescribed particulars—of accidents in offices involving loss of life or disability causing loss of wages for more than three days. As a result of an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jessel, if an office forms part of a factory the notice must be sent to the factory inspector for the area in which the office is situated. In any other case the notice is sent to the local authority for that area.
There was insufficient time to examine the drafting of my noble friend's Amendment before the Committee stage, but it now seems that it was not altogether satisfactory. Some offices that form part of a factory are so situated—for instance, within the curtilage of factory premises—as to be also subject to the corresponding provisions for notification of precisely the same categories of accidents as are contained in Section 64 of the Factories Act, 1937. In other words., my noble friend's Amendment would have the effect of requiring the occupier of such an office within a factory curtilage to have to give two notices to the same inspector of the same accident; and I know that my noble friend did not intend that.
678
Subsection 2 of the proposed Amendment begins by excluding from Clause 5 accidents which are notifiable under the Factories Act, 1937. This leaves the clause applicable to Clause 7 offices which do not actually form part of a factory in such a way as to be subject to that particular Act. Subsection (3) is a provision in contemplation of the new clause that I will move (Clause 7)—which is in respect of enforcement of the Act in relation to offices in mines and quarries. It is a technical Amendment arising from the drafting on the principle of my noble friend's Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section").—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have no wish to oppose the Amendment moved and lucidly explained by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, but I want to remind him and my noble friend that it was my intention on the. Committee stage of the Bill to introduce in this particular part of the Bill, and indeed in Clause 7 as well, Amendments which would have had the effect of resting the responsibility for ensuring proper precautions in case of fire on the fire authorities; in other words, the county councils and county borough councils. I did not move this Amendment for procedural reasons, because I was most anxious that the Bill should reach the Statute Book and I did not want to do anything, therefore, that might hinder that objective. Therefore my present remarks, with all respect, are addressed more to the noble Earl and the Government than to my noble friend who is in Charge of the Bill here.
The noble Earl has just explained that his Amendment was necessary to the Amendment of his noble friend Lord Jessel because the effect of Lord Jessel's Amendment would be to make two notifications necessary as there would be two different authorities. It is precisely for that reason that I wish to make county authorities the only fire authorities responsible with regard to fire precautions. I adhere entirely to the statement I made earlier: I do not wish to hinder this Bill. But I think that this is a most important principle on which, so far, this House has fallen down; and I want to suggest, therefore, in my remarks, ways in which

679
I hope the Government, before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, will make good this omission.
My Lords, the Bill, contrary to our earlier expectations, is now going back to another place with Amendments for which the Government have accepted the responsibility for providing time, ensuring, therefore, that they do not hinder the Bill. I now seek the Governments assistance and support on this important question of fire prevention and the means of escape in cases of fire in offices. Every single one of us was horrified the other day by the fire disaster at a Liverpool store when eight people died a terrible death. I say at once that I am not suggesting (because I do not know) that there were not proper safeguards at that store. Indeed, I should be the first to admit that, since it was in Liverpool, the fire precautions there were in the hands of the fire authority, the county borough, and therefore, if my suggestions were accepted, its advice could be no better than it was. I am not making any imputations whatsoever. I am merely saying that we do not know why it happened, but that these things do happen, and that the risk is increased, and must obviously be increased, unless fire prevention experts are responsible for precautions.
That means that the people with the job of putting out fires must, or should, be responsible for those fire precautions. There can be no possible argument about this. I do not like being dogmatic, as a rule, but there can be no possible argument, because the fire authorities, the county councils and the county boroughs, are the only people who employ these experts. The district and the metropolitan borough councils do not employ fire experts. They are not the fire authorities. The public health inspector may go round, but he has no expert knowledge about it; and therefore the district councils, who are responsible in this Bill as it now stands for fire precautions in offices, just do not have anyone whom they can send round who is competent to advise on these things.
It is a very serious matter. The Government recognised this in the 1959 Factories Act and rightly insisted that responsibility for safety precautions must rest with the fire authorities—the noble
680
Earl opposite will remember our discussions on this point. It is just as necessary in offices. Indeed, with some of the old offices I would say it is even more necessary than in factories, because in some cases the danger to life is even greater. And the Government should not allow—and I say this in particular to the noble Earl considerations of parochial prestige to weigh with them when it is a matter of human life, a matter of life and death.
For procedural reasons, of which we are all aware, it is not possible for my noble friend to do anything about this; but it is possible for the Government. At an earlier stage in the proceedings on this Bill the noble Earl said that he had brought my contentions on this particular matter to the attention of his right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and he said that the Home Secretary was considering them. I should like to ask whether a decision has been reached. If so, I imagine that the Government must have reaffirmed their adherence to the principle that responsibility for looking after fire arrangements should rest with the people who have to fight the fires, the fire authorities. If so, I would ask the noble Earl whether the Government will make the necessary change in another place on this Bill.
In my view, it could be done by an Amendment to the Amendment which was accepted on Committee stage, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. The noble Earl has himself decided, on behalf of the Government, to move Amendments to that Amendment. Therefore I am suggesting another very simple Amendment, which he himself would be able to make (or, if he would be willing to accept the advice, I would humbly make a suggestion on this matter) whereby my point could be met in an Amendment to that Amendment. It would then have to be considered in another place and I am sure, with Government support, it would be accepted and there would be plenty of time for the Bill to get on to the Statute Book. I hope that that can be done, but if for any reason that suggestion is not practicable then I ask for an assurance that the matter will be put right in the Government's own Bill. In this matter I have been advised of the very strong feeling of the County Councils Association. I do not represent them any more

681
than I represent anyone else, but I think it is only right to say how strongly they feel and, in my view, how rightly they feel in the matter.
With regard to the Government's own Bill (about which the noble Earl was a little shy when it was referred to on Committee or Second Reading) the Under-Secretary in another place, Mr. Vosper, on Third Reading, using arguments similar to my own, said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 620, col. 1762]:
"… there is substance in the argument, and possibly other enforcement provisions should be made in accordance with similar provisions in factory legislation … in any legislation which might follow this Bill we might have to have further talks about enforcement authorities generally. … As to the future, the Government are considering whether the Bill should be overtaken by some more comprehensive form of legislation".
The Bill which we are now discussing comes in operation on January 1, 1962. If it is to be overtaken by another Bill, that Bill must be introduced by the Government in the next Session. I would ask the noble Earl, therefore, for an assurance that the Government will enact the fire precautions either by the Amendment I have now suggested to this Bill, or in their own Bill.
I have one other point. In connection with the projected, or (forthcoming, or half-promised, Government Bill it will be recalled that I asked them to include in regulations regarding conditions back-stage. I mentioned the bad working conditions in television rehearsal rooms. Since then, I think it is fair to say, I have learnt that there is one exception to the strictures I made—namely, Granada Television. I am informed that neither Equity nor the other entertainment unions have ever had a complaint about this particular firm's facilities and that they are well (satisfied with them. I would only say that, since they can do it, I hope the B.B.C. and the other commercial companies will quickly follow suit.
I am strengthened in this request by a number of letters that I have received since my earlier remarks, and I should like to quote one of them. This is how it reads:
"May I as an actress of over twenty-five years in the English theatre, thank you most warmly for your voice crying in the wilderness over the deplorable conditions my profession
682
are forced, in these supposedly enlightened days, to work under? In the case of the theatre, these are sometimes economically unavoidable, but television has no such excuse. I have experienced cases of shocking hardship among old and elderly players, as rehearsal rooms and halls are nearly all well off the beaten track and miles from transport or decent restaurants. 'Stars' with their own cars and the young and strong can survive these conditions, but it is not surprising to read often of over-fatigued older people taking overdoses of sleeping tablets, or suddenly collapsing and dying during or after TV rehearsals.
"I should very gladly he prepared to endorse all this with much more detail. Meanwhile, may I beg you to keep my name strictly private? Were the contents of this letter made public with my name attached, I should get no more television work."
My Lords, I have quoted that letter, first of all, to make amends for some exaggeration that I might previously have made, but also to show that in general, at least, there was no exaggeration. It is something of which I hope the Government, when they come to prepare this Bill, will take cognisance, because it is quite disgraceful that firms with so much money should allow their employees to endure such hardships. In any case, I hope that the Government will put forward in another place the Amendment to this Bill that I have asked for, thus ensuring that we do the utmost possible to ensure that proper safety conditions are laid down to prevent fatalities in the case of fire.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am in precisely the same position as my noble friend Lord Stonham. May I say at once that I heartily support what he said about the fire authorities, and I hope very much that the Government will deal with it one of the two ways he has suggested. What the Bill has done, for many purposes, is to convert an office attached to a factory into a "factory", so that it comes under the Factory Inspectorate and accidents are reported to the Factories Department of the Ministry of Labour and not to the local authority. However, there is one important respect in which the offices will remain dissimilar, and in which I think it would be greatly to the advantage of people who work in them if they did not remain dissimilar—and that is as to the compulsory medical inspection of young People by the appointed factory doctor.

683
The appointed factory doctor is required by law to examine young people working in a factory three times before they are 18, at yearly intervals; and some firms do it as a voluntary service in their offices. This is a time when tuberculosis is particularly liable to be detected, and tuberculosis in young, office workers is a serious matter, not only for them but for those with whom they work. I very much hone that now that this step of associating the factory offices with the factory as regards accidents and accident prevention has been taken, this small extra step will also be taken, either now or in the Bill which the Government will be introducing, to extend the work of the appointed factory doctor to the young workers in the factory office.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: My Lords, you will notice that on the Marshalled List there is an Amendment down in the name of my noble friend Lord Burden and myself, and I hope your Lordships will think it appropriate that I should make some observations upon the Amendments which the noble Earl has just moved, for that will avoid my having to deal with similar points which will arise when our Amendment is called. Your Lordships will see that Lord Burden and myself desire to delete Clause 7, because that is the clause under which the factory inspector is given powers under this Bill to deal with the offices in connection with those factories where mechanical power is used. It will be appreciated that under the Bill generally the public health Inspectors of local authorities have been entrusted with the power to implement this Bill in relation to offices throughout the country, whether they be in connection with a profession, trade, business or a factory where no mechanical power is used. It is only in the case of factories where mechanical power is used that the power is removed from the public health inspector and transferred to the factory inspector.
EARL BATHURST: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I know he did not mean to mislead, but the factory inspectors will take over only the offices which are within the curtilage of a factory, or are attached closely to a factory. It does not mean any other office which is connected with the factory.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: Yes, I appreciate that.
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord does understand? He did not say so.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: Yes, I appreciate what the noble Earl has said, and I was mindful of the fact that it concerned only offices within the curtilage of a factory. The noble Earl considers that that is important, and so do I. But why the question of mechanical power should decide that the factory inspectors should undertake matters with regard to the conditions of offices, and the health and welfare of those who are engaged in them, and not the public health inspectors, upon whom the responsibility rests in respect of every other kind of office, it is very difficult to understand.
It may be that it is as a result of the Factories Act, 1937, under which the factory inspectors were given the power to deal with matters regarding cleanliness, and so on, in factories where mechanical power was used; and it may well be that it was thought that this was a reasonable extension of the duties that they had there. It may also have been thought that, as the factory inspector does in the course of his duties examine and inspect the factories where mechanical power is used, it is not unreasonable to require him to see the conditions of the offices under which the people who are engaged in them have to work. If that were the case, and the public health inspectors of the local authorities were not required to visit the factories where mechanical power was used, I could understand the force of that argument. But that is not the case. Public health inspectors of local authorities are already required for a variety of purposes to visit factories where mechanical power is used.
They have to undertake work in connection with atmospheric pollution; they have to undertake inspection with regard to hygiene in kitchens and canteens; they have to attend to deal with the control of insects and rodent pests; they have to abate public health nuisances, and also attend to other public health matters—drainage disposal and disposal of waste materials, offensive trades, and the like. So the public health inspectors already have to attend at these factories where mechanical power is used; and I cannot see why

685
these people, who have been entrusted with the implementation of the provisions of this Bill in every kind of office other than offices which are within the curtilage of such factories, should be debarred from exercising the powers which they exercise in all other respects merely because mechanical power is used in those factories. It is true that there is one provision in the Bill which is reserved exclusively for the public health inspectors as regards factories where mechanical power is used, in that they are expressly authorised to visit and inspect the sanitary arrangements in such factories.
My Lords, I do not raise any objection to this point on the ground that the factory inspectors are in any way unfitted to carry out the inspections; nor do I suggest that they are incompetent to do the work which will fall on them in this regard.
LORD TAYLOR: They probably are incompetent.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: My noble friend, who is a responsible member of the medical profession, says that he thinks that public health inspectors of local authorities are incompetent to consider the conditions of offices under this Bill. Parliament so far has entrusted them with all offices other than those within the curtilage of factories.
LORD TAYLOR: I think that they are considerably less competent than the Health Ministry factory inspectors.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I was going to deal with the factory inspectors. In his Report for 1958, the Chief Inspector of Factories reports that there are over 200,000 factories where mechanical power is used, all of which come under the responsibility of the factory inspectors. Of 407 inspectors of all grades, 338 are out-stationed. The report shows that in 1958 they were under establishment. There were eleven chemical, eight engineering and two medical inspector posts which had not been filled. In the factories inspected in 1958 they reported 167,697 accidents, of which 665 were fatal. There were 1,243 dangerous occurrences, and the inspectors found it necessary in 124 cases to lay information against the persons in control, or the management, in respect of offences
686
against safety requirements which in most cases involved the death or injury of the workpeople concerned.
All this means that these 338 factory inspectors, besides their reports and the necessary duties they have to undertake in seeing that the safety requirements in over 200,000 factories are well maintained, have to attend magistrates' courts when they institute proceedings and inquests when workpeople are killed in their employment. Furthermore, in 1958, additional responsibilities were cast upon them under the Slaughterhouses Act of that year, and the development of nuclear energy and the increasing use of ionising radiation has cast further responsibilities upon them. On page 36 of the Report I have mentioned, it is stated:
"The rapid development of nuclear energy, together with the increased use of ionising radiation for a wide range of industrial processes, creates a number of problems for the inspectorate in relation to its responsibilities concerning the health and safety of those covered by the Factories Act."
Up to the time of the Report only 40 out of 338 on the Factory Inspectorate had been able to attend the five-day course in dealing with nuclear energy and the problems it throws up, although I have no doubt that a considerably greater number have been able to attend these courses since.
The case I make with regard to this Bill is that the matters with which the Bill deals are matters that should fall within the province of the public health inspectors of the local authorities. The factory inspectors should not be burdened with these additional responsibilities. Their duties in looking after the safe working and proper protection of workers engaged in factories are so serious that the inspections under this Bill should be the function of the public health inspectors. It is for these reasons that my noble friend Lord Burden and I have put down the Amendment to delete Clause 7. I make these observations now because, if the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted by your Lordships, that would make it impossible for me to move my Amendment. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having intervened at this stage in order to set out the reasons why this Amendment was put down.
4.37 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, one of the charms of your Lordships' House is that our discussions can range much wider than the Motion before your Lordships. I am not complaining about it, because there is a great advantage in it. It may not do somewhere else, because advantage would be taken of it; but your Lordships are so expeditious in discharging the functions of revision of legislation that it is unlikely that advantage would be taken of it here. This discussion, so to speak, has telescoped the whole discussion on these Amendments.
As I understand it, the case of Her Majesty's Government in these Amendments is that it is better that one body of inspectors should function under the Bill. It is more economical and more convenient for the occupiers of premises if there is only one body of inspectors. If two or three bodies of inspectors were involved, they might happen to disagree with each other or would increase the number of visits, which would not be too convenient for the occupiers. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, had an Amendment down on Committee stage which had the same purpose as one of these Government Amendments. I think the noble Lord can be comforted by the fact that the substance of his Amendment remains and that has made a contribution to the Bill. The Government have put it in what they conceive to be a more tidy form.
My noble friend Lord Stonham, who has asked me to apologise because he has had to leave for another meeting, raised the important point that the fire safety aspects of offices should be dealt with exclusively by the fire fighting authorities—the councils of counties and county boroughs. The argument is attractive and logical, but my noble friend has to face the fact that the law about fire regulations is already in something of a tangle. Under, I think, one of the Public Health Acts the county district authorities and the metropolitan boroughs—certainly the county districts outside London—in their capacity as regulators of new buildings and building operations already have in the discharge of those duties material powers in respect of fire. I am advised that they would resist losing those powers to the fire authority; and having already got
688
those powers, they think that fire should come within the scope of their inspectoral duties as regards offices. So we are already in something of a tangle. I can only say to my noble friend Lord Stonham—and I am grateful to him for his forbearance and co-operation in regard to the Bill—that the Government some day, I understand, are going to introduce legislation dealing in a more comprehensive way with the problem that is dealt with by this Bill. It may be that then they will examine all these problems of possible overlapping and make some improvements.
But it is the case that, whereas the purpose of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, and of the Government is to simplify inspection by concentrating it with one body of inspectors, my noble friend Lord Stonham, if he had been able to move his Fire Brigade Amendment, would have liked to introduce another body of inspectors in addition to those that already exist. There is a legitimate conflict, and there are legitimate arguments on both sides. But we have to be as logical as Parliament can be on a Private Bill of this sort, although it is not possible to be entirely logical on the matter.
My noble friend Lord Taylor put a vigorous argument as to the merits of these various bodies of inspectors, and he knows more about that than I do. Frankly, I should not like to join in the argument, partly because I already have enough trouble, and partly because I do not know enough about it to express an opinion on the relative merits of the factory inspectors and the public health inspectors.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I think I went a little further than I should have done in suggesting that public health inspectors were not as good as factory inspectors. I did not mean to say that. I meant to say that I thought they were considerably less appropriate for this particular job, having regard to the fact that there will be factory inspectors already there inside the factory, and because the management of these particular offices are familiar with this type of work. I think they would do it equally well, given the training.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: My Lords I am obliged to my noble friend,

689
but he will appreciate that the public health inspectors are already there and doing this job in other respects.
LORD TAYLOR: If I may say so, they are less frequently there: in fact, I have never seen a public health inspector in a factory, though I know that they are supposed to inspect the lavatory. I have never known a lavatory to be inspected in a factory by a public health inspector, whereas I have known large numbers of factories being continuously inspected by Her Majesty's factory inspectors.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: If my noble friend thinks it important, perhaps I can arrange for him to be notified when they will be attending next.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My noble friend Lord Taylor is always, to use the words of Matthew Arnold, a splendid example of "sweetness and light" and it is very fine of him to withdraw from the position he had taken on the relative merits of these inspectors. I have a great respect for my noble friend and would not contradict him for worlds. I just say that I do not know enough about it to express an opinion.
From my noble friend Lord Granville-West we listened to another turn in the argument. My noble friend Lord Stonham, so to speak, made the case for the fire prevention and fire fighting authorities, and my noble friend Lord Granville-West made the case for the county districts outside the county of London. Again, I understand him perfectly, and, indeed, he made quite a reasonable case. He wanted the inspectors of the county districts outside London—and possibly the metropolitan boroughs—to do the job that the Government propose should be done by the factory inspectors. Thereby comes the same argument. The Government will probably resist that on the ground that it would involve a duplication of inspection within a given building or curtilage. That also is difficult to resist.
In all the circumstances, I think we had better take note of the arguments, and give all the arguers prizes, in that they all have a case and there is merit in the argument they have put forward. BM at the end of the day I think we
690
should leave the Bill as it is, subject to the Government's Amendments, which, after consideration and, on balance, I think it is reasonable for the House to accept—in any case, as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, I had better accept, because it will facilitate the passage of the Bill if I do. I would suggest, therefore, that we had better accept the Government's Amendments, take note of all the arguments and hope that they can have more effective results on another day.
4.47 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told me also that he was unable to be present to hear my reply because he has to take the chair in a Committee upstairs. Before I make a reply on behalf of the Government to what has been said, I want to associate myself and the Government with the feelings of horror and sadness expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with regard to this terrible fire in Liverpool. Then, I am quite sure that some of your Lordships will have started reading the report of the inquiry into that tragic fire in Glasgow where so many brave firemen lost their lives. Fire is a terrifying problem, and your Lordships are well aware of and most grateful for the interest that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, takes in all the affairs of the fire service and the dangers and risks of fire. Indeed, in some three-quarters of an hour we shall have another terrible and tragic problem to consider with regard to oil stoves.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and most lucky also that he should be sponsoring this Bill. With all his experience as a past Home Secretary, he has put before your Lordships all the problems that I should have had to put. But not only has the noble Lord vast practical experience, but, as he explained to your Lordships, he also has the political experience, and possibly that is one of the reasons, as he said, why he is accepting my Amendments.
The problems which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West and, to a lesser extent, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, put forward are enormous and full of dissentient opinion, as your Lordships have already heard. The problem with which we are

691
dealing under this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is a small one, although on looking into the Amendment it seemed very sensible, as time went on, that one inspectorate only should be responsible for the particular office of this particular type. It was only by misfortune that the noble Lord's Amendment as it was drafted would not fill the bill. We have heard of the complications that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put forward. I quoted almost word for word, I believe, the quotation in another place of my right honourable friend, which the noble Lord quoted to-day. I think we can go no further—I certainly cannot—and I hope that I did not give the appearance of making a shy speech on the occasion of the Second Reading. Obviously I cannot commit my right honourable friend or the Government. But what I can say is that my right honourable friend is giving this matter serious and close attention, and it was he and his advisers who brought to my attention the whole problem which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put before your Lordships. The noble Lord may rest assured that this problem is being considered and that all the interested parties, about whom we have heard a considerable amount this afternoon, will have a chance to voice their opinions. I hone that when the noble Lord reads that he will see what I mean and what my right honourable friend means.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, brought up a new problem and one of which we have not heard in the course of this Bill. I understand that medical inspection for young people in factories is far outside the scope of this Bill. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will look at what the noble Lord has said, and that one day it may be possible to do something to bring about the state that he would like to see, should that seem to be desirable. But I must tell the noble Lord that it is right outside the scope of this Bill, either here to-day or in another place.
With regard to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, the whole object of my Amendment is to simplify the task of inspecting. Indeed, that is what my noble friend Lord Jessel had in mind. It seemed reasonable to think that, where a factory was being
692
inspected next door to an office which is within the curtilage, it would not be a great extra burden on that inspector to go through the office and make his recommendations or criticisms, or give his approval, as the case may be. Indeed, he may already be doing a considerable amount of talking and visiting in that particular office. For that reason, it was thought to be a less onerous burden to the inspector if that work could be given to a factory inspector rather than to the local authority inspector which the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, would like.
As to the factories which have no machinery, their problems are more problems of health and hygiene, rather than problems of mechanical danger, which is, I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will agree, the No. 1 problem in a factory today. It is for that reason that all factories with machinery should be inspected by the factory inspectorate. Only one in ten of the factories in existence to-day has no machinery of any kind. Therefore, I think your Lordships would agree that it is better to keep the same inspector to inspect the office and the factory if those two buildings are in the same curtilage. The rest of the Factory Act inspection system remains exactly as it is. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for accepting these Amendments, and I assure your Lordships that I am certain that they will make for the smoother operation of the Bill, which the noble Lord and all your Lordships would like to see in operation as soon as possible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.54 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment I have just moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert—
"(2) No report need be sent under this section of an accident of which notice is required to be sent to the inspector for the district under section sixty-four of the Factories Act, 1937, and a report under this section of an accident in an office which is within the close, curtilage or precincts of premises constituting a factory as defined in that Act shall be sent to the said inspector, and not to the local authority.
(3) No report need be sent under this section of an accident in an office to which section one hundred and sixteen of the Mines and

693
Quarries Act, 1954 (which requires the notification of accidents in mines and quarries), applies."—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Enforcement of Act by local authorities]:
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the new clause that I shall move after Clause 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("section seven") and insert ("sections seven and (Enforcement of Act as respects offices at mines and quarries)").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Enforcement of Act by factory inspectors in certain cases]:
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this Amendment is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 5, and it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I discuss the two together. The new subsection (4) in Amendment No. 5 follows a precedent of the factories legislation, and is modelled on Section 156 (9) of the Factories Act, 1937. It arises from the immediately preceding subsection, which gives the factory inspector the power to prosecute with respect to any office which it is his duty to inspect—that is, the offices in factories about which we have been speaking. In Scotland this is not sufficient, because there a prosecutor cannot give evidence in a case which he is conducting, and therefore a specific authority is needed to allow a factory inspector in Scotland to do this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("as respects any office") and insert ("in the case of offices").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
("(4) It shall not be an objection to the competency of an inspector to give evidence in any proceeding instituted in Scotland in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection that the proceeding is brought at his instance or conducted by him.")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: My Lords, having expressed my views with
694
regard to this matter, and having no wish to delay the House any further, as I am in entire agreement with the main principles of this Bill, I do not move my Amendment to leave out Clause 7.
EARL BATHURSTmoved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Enforcement of Act as respects offices at mines and quarries
".—(1) This section applies to any office which, for the purposes of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, forms or is deemed to form part of a mine or quarry within the meaning of that Act.
(2) The provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under section one of this Act shall, in the case of offices to which this section applies, be enforced by inspectors appointed by the Minister of Power under section one hundred and forty-four of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, or such other officers of the Ministry of Power as may be authorised in that behalf in writing under the hand of the Minister of Power; and

(a) the Minister of Power may regulate the cases and manner in which inspectors so appointed and other officers so authorised are to execute and perform their powers and duties under this section;

(b) an inspector so appointed or officer so authorised may, after producing (if so required) the instrument by which he was so appointed or, as the case may be, his said written authority, enter at all reasonable hours any office to which this section applies or any premises which he has reasonable cause to believe to be an office to which this section applies for the purpose of making such examinations and inquiries as may be necessary to ascertain whether the said provisions are complied with;

(c) any person who obstructs an inspector so appointed or an officer so authorised in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be guilty of an offence."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with due regard to noble Lords opposite, perhaps I am in rather mare sweetness than light (I think the noble Lord used that expression) after the noble Lord's intervention on the first Amendment. This Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said, is somewhat similar to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jessel but deals with mines and quarries. It gives effect to the wishes expressed at the Report stage in another place. There it was argued that mines and quarries should not be subject to inspection by two sets of inspectors, in the same way as we have been talking about this afternoon.
At present these offices are subject to the requirements of the Mines and

695
Quarries Act, 1954, and to inspection under it. The health, welfare and safety regulations in that Act are extensive and are not meant to deal so much with the office workers above ground as with those employed at the working surface of mines and quarries. It was generally accepted in another place that this Bill should apply to offices above ground of mines and quarries where working conditions are not different from those in any other offices, but that inspection should be carried out, if possible, by the inspectors who visit those mines and quarries under the 1954 Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, it is a complicated provision, but in fact it deals with exactly the same problem that my noble friend Lord Jessel has mentioned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble Earl has explained the purpose of this Amendment very clearly, and, indeed, it is the same in principle as the purpose of the Amendment dealing with factories. Again, it is for the purpose of avoiding a duplicate inspection, so far as that can be done. I think it is a reasonable Amendment. It inevitably follows—the point having been raised by the appropriate Government Department or some body—the other Amendment with regard to the Factory Inspectorate, and I would concur in the advice that has been given the House to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I now beg to move that this Bill do now pass, and I should like, in doing so, to thank your Lordships for the kindly consideration you have given to this measure, which has been wanted for a good time and which has a long and unsuccessful Parliamentary history. I am very grateful that your Lordships should have been helpful in the passage of the Bill into law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE BILL
5.1 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Power to extend or restrict application of Act]:
LORD ST. OSWALDmoved to add to subsection (4):
"and
(b) the number of the representative members of each board exceeds by one the number of the other members of the board; and
(c) the number of the members of the Council required by the First Schedule to this Act to be registered medical practitioners is equal to the number of the representative members of the Council;
and in this subsection 'representative member' has the same meaning as in that Schedule."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with preserving the agreed numerical balance as between representative members and other members on both the Registration Boards and the Council. Representative members means, under the First Schedule, those nominated by the Professions Supplementary to Medicine. Their numbers on each Board and on the Council have been agreed on the basis of a just proportion, giving the representative members an overall majority of one on each Board and equality on the Council with the medical members. Because, under Clause 10, the number of Boards now to be set up can be varied by an order of the Privy Council, either by addition or subtraction, it has been felt necessary to ensure that this same majority, in the one case, and equality, in the other, shall be preserved.
The Bill as it stands already confers adequate powers on the Privy Council, but as I shall point out in a moment, it will set some minds at rest if this important point is put beyond all possible doubt and written into the Bill.

697
The Amendment is in two parts, paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) ensures that should a new profession be brought in under these provisions, the new Board thus created will also have a majority of one representative member over its other members. Paragraph (c) consequently ensures that should the Council be expanded in this way by another representative member appointed from the new Board, that representative member will be balanced by another medical member of the Council, so preserving the existing equality. Similarly, it ensures that, should one or more of the founder Boards subsequently drop out, under the same Clause 10, then the number of medical members of the Council will also be correspondingly reduced.
I should say at this point that Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are to some extent consequential upon this Amendment, which assumes that they will be accepted. Paragraph (c), which I have just described, is part of a Government Amendment, but it coincides with one which would otherwise have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, but which has now been withdrawn. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor also expressed his interest in this aspect of maintaining the numerical balance on the Council when he intervened briefly in my Second Reading speech. I am grateful to both noble Lords and I hope that the Amendment as proposed will give general satisfaction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD TAYLOR: This Amendment does give entire satisfaction. It is very sensible; indeed, it deals with the situation in the only possible way it could be dealt with if the agreements which have gone into the creation of these Boards and Council are to be maintained. We certainly accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Constitutions of the Council and boards, and supplementary provisions]:
LORD ST. OSWALDmoved, in paragraph 1 (d), to leave out "persons" and insert registered medical practitioners".
The noble Lord said: With the approval of the House, I should like to move Amendments 2, 3 and 4 together. They are virtually identical in wording and in purpose. As I have indicated, these three Amendments follow upon the previous one. Their effect would be to ensure that members of the Council appointed by the English Colleges, the Scottish Corporations and the General Medical Council would be registered medical practitioners. The Bill as drafted provides for these bodies to appoint "persons" and thereby does not limit them to appointing medical practitioners.
During the long discussions which preceded the preparation of the Bill, it was clear that the greatest importance was attached to the principle that there should be numerical equality between the representative and medical members of the Council. In this connection it had always been assumed that the persons appointed by the English Colleges, the Scottish Corporations and the General Medical Council would in fact be registered medical practitioners, and the point was therefore not specifically dealt with in the Bill. Amendments to place the matter beyond any possible doubt were put down by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. He subsequently withdrew them, but the Government have put down Amendments in similar terms, since it seems to them that they might be an improvement to the Bid. As I indicated earlier, these Amendments are consequential on the Amendment to Clause 10, providing safeguards as to the composition of the Council and the Boards, in so far as that Amendment could not be fully effective without them. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 25, leave out ("persons") and insert ("registered medical practitioners").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 27, leave out ("persons") and insert ("registered medical practitioners").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("person") and insert ("registered medical practitioner").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.9 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALDmoved, after paragraph 5 to insert:
"6. Before the English Colleges or the Scottish Corporations nominate a person for appointment as a member of a board an pursuance of paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4 above, they shall consult such body or bodies (if any) as they consider appropriate in relation to that nomination, being a body or bodies appearing to them to represent medical practitioners specialising in a field with which the board will be concerned."
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked me whether on the Radiographers' Board it would not be possible to guarantee the representation of at least one therapeutic radiologist and one diagnostic radiologist, and I gave him an undertaking that this would be sympathetically considered before the present stage of the Bill. The fruit of this sympathetic consideration has ripened in the form of this Amendment. It is not restricted to the Radiographers' Board, but applies to all Boards to be created, now or later, under the provisions of this Bill. I am, all the same, in a slightly difficult position over this excellent Amendment, because, possibly encouraged by my undertaking at Second Reading, Lord Taylor has put down his own Amendment, which is more precisely in line with his request on that occasion and is due to be moved after this one. In arguing the virtues of this concept over that contained in his original proposal, I am bound, at least by inference, to find myself arguing the advantages of my Amendment over his, which is not yet under discussion. A less generous man than the noble Lord—anyone less exemplified by "sweetness and light", as his noble friend recently said of him—might regard this as taking unfair advantage from my Amendment being called first. I hope that the noble Lord will not be so inclined.
The purpose of Che Amendment is to ensure that before nominating any person for membership of a Board the English Colleges and Scottish Corporations shall consult such specialised medical bodies as they consider appropriate.
700
As at present drafted, the Bill provides for the great majority of the medical members of Boards to be nominated by the English Royal Colleges (defined in paragraph 21 of the First Schedule to the Bill) jointly and the Scottish Corporations (also defined in that paragraph) jointly. This is in accordance with the scheme negotiated with representatives of the supplementary professions and the Joint Consultants Committee. The Bill is silent as to the procedure to be followed by the Medical bodies in making nominations. The anxiety expressed by Lord Taylor and by Professor Smithers, whom he quoted, in relation to the Radiographers' Board, was also felt by Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, who put down an Amendment, very similar in content to that of the noble Lord, which has now been withdrawn.
The reason we prefer this wider method of dealing with the problem is that a similar problem could arise in connection with other Boards, since there are other consultants who have a special interest in the work of particular Boards. I name as examples consultants in physical medicine and orthopedic surgeons in the Physiotherapists' Board, the Occupational Therapists' Board, the Remedial Gymnasts' Board, and the pathologists in the Medical Laboratory Technicians Board. There are various highly respected bodies connected with these separate branches of medicine. If I mention the British Orthopædic Association, the British Association of Physical Medicine and the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland, it is only as examples of those who might feel a legitimate claim to nominating rights, once this principle has been recognised. It is difficult, in fact, to know where such claims might end, or where they could properly be rejected. I hope that I have made clear the difficulties, as we see them, of confining this solution to the Radiographers' Board alone, and the dangers, as we see them, of applying throughout the solution proposed by Lord Taylor.
It is clearly desirable that, when making any nominations to a Board, the English Colleges and Scottish Corporations should not overlook the desirability of prior consultation with any specialist professional body which seems to them to have a particular interest in

701
that particular field. It has, however, always been assumed that the Colleges and Corporations would, in fact, carry out consultation of this sort. The Government are sure that this assumption is correct, but since they are very conscious of the importance of making entirely sure that specialist professional opinion is not overlooked, they now put forward an Amendment specifically designed to secure this. While ensuring that this important object is secured, however, the Amendment preserves the principle that ultimate responsibility for making the nominations should be in the hands of the English Colleges and Scottish Corporations. It is hoped that this is a satisfactory compromise solution which will secure the main objects of all concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 8, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD TAYLOR: The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald need not have been so nice had he not wanted to. It was kind of him to say the things that he has said. We regard this as a completely satisfactory solution of the problem. He need not have gone so far, because we were concerned only with the radiographers. As we said earlier, they were the only folk who were dealing with a lethal weapon; and that was why we were so concerned that there should be this double representation. But the method the noble Lord and the Government have adopted seems an eminently sensible one. It will fully meet what is required. We can guarantee that the Faculty of Radiologists will be consulted by the Royal Colleges and will nominate properly. Therefore, this Amendment does precisely what I anti my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead want. We are most grateful to the Government for giving us what we want in this accommodating way, and we feel that in the long term it will be of benefit not only to the Radiographers' Board, but to all the other Boards as well.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended agreed to.
Second Schedule [The Investigating and Disciplinary Committees]:
5.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)moved in paragraph 2,
702
to leave out "the committee may administer oaths" and insert
"in England or Wales or Northern Ireland the committee may administer oaths and any party to the proceedings may sue out writs of subpœna ad testificandum and duces tecum, but no person shall be compelled under any such writ to produce any document which he could not be compelled to produce on the trial of an action.
(2) The provisions of section forty-nine of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or of the Attendance of Witnesses Act, 1854 (which provide special procedures for the issue of such writs so as to be in force throughout the United Kingdom) shall apply in relation to any proceedings before a disciplinary committee in England or Wales or, as the case may be, in Northern Ireland as those provisions apply in relation to causes or matters in the High Court or actions or suits pending in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(3) For the purpose of any proceedings before a disciplinary committee in Scotland, the committee may administer oaths and the Court of Session shall on the application of any party to the proceedings have the like power as in any action in that court to grant warrant for the citation of witnesses and havers to give evidence or to produce documents before the committee, and for the issue of letters of second diligence against any witness or haver failing to appear after due citation, to grant warrant for the recovery of documents, and to grant commissions to persons to take the evidence of witnesses or to examine havers and receive their exhibits and productions."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is to restore to the Bill the express powers for parties to proceedings before a disciplinary committee to obtain writs of subpoena in whatever part of the United Kingdom the committee may be sitting. Your Lordships may have noticed that these powers were contained in paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Bill as originally drafted, but, on an Amendment moved by my right honourable friend the Minister, were removed on the Committee stage in another place while we were waiting for the Report of the Committee presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, which had been appointed—I quote—
"to consider to what extent and subject to what conditions, subpœnas (or in Scotland citations) should be issuable to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents before disciplinary tribunals".
Your Lordships will remember that the Report of my noble and learned friend's Committee was published in May. The Committee concluded in general that it is essential that there

703
should be a power of subpœna in connection with proceedings before disciplinary tribunals. In paragraph 11 of the Report they say:
"We emphasise that where Parliament has confided to a professional body a disciplinary jurisdiction which enables it to penalise a member by depriving him of the power to earn a living in his chosen profession and perhaps gravely injuring him in his reputation, it is essential that in proceedings before such a tribunal prosecutor and accused alike should have power to enforce the attendance of witnesses."
The Committee also conclude that it is not sufficient for the parties to such proceedings to be left to rely on the issue of a writ from the Crown Office. Their reasons for this view are, first, that the existence of such a power is not sufficiently widely known; and, secondly, that writs from the Crown Office do not appear to run outside England and Wales. The Committee therefore say, in paragraph 15 of their Report:
"We therefore recommend that express statutory power to secure the issue of writs of subpœna should be conferred on those statutory disciplinary tribunals that do not now possess it. We further recommend that if Parliament sees fit to create additional disciplinary bodies in the future they should also have the power for the reasons we have given."
During the Second Reading in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord St. Oswald announced the Government's intention to restore to the Bill, at this stage, the powers for the issue of writs of subpœna. Both the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and my noble and learned friend, Lord Simonds, welcomed this announcement. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary had already indicated, in reply to a Question in the House of Commons, that the Government accepted in principle the recommendations contained in the Report. This Amendment gives effect to the Government's announced intention and is in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee presided over by my noble and learned friend. I hope your Lordships will allow me to express to my noble and learned friends Lord Simonds and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, my personal gratitude for the trouble they took over this rather complicated point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 4, leave out ("the committee may administer oaths") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD TAYLOR: We willingly accept this Amendment. We, too, should like to be associated with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in thanking the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, for his valuable Report and to say that we are quite sure that this is essential for the proper working of these boards and tribunals.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OF MOTOR CYCLES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS) BILL
5.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is a Bill which is born out of tragedy by frustrated hopes. Millions of people in these Islands have thought that they had found a cheap, convenient and safe form of heating of the home. Cheap, yes; convenient, yes; but not so safe as had been thought. Of course, there have been oil stoves for many years. They fall mainly into three different types. There is the wick type, which we all know, an upright stove with a handle by which it is carried about. There is the pressure type which is blown up by an internal pump; and there is the drip-feed radiant type of heater which has become very popular and is of more recent invention.
Obviously, all oil stoves are subject to dangers. For instance, if they are knocked over there is bound to be risk of fire. The wick type is rather easily

705
overturned. The pressure type, which has always filled me with fear, is, in fact, supposed to be the safest of them all; but as it will not hold a great deal of oil it is not very popular for heating purposes. The drip-feed radiant type is the latest and most popular kind of heater and there are several million of them in use; but it has proved to have unsuspected dangers.
First, how does this type of heater work? It looks rather like a tubby electric convector fire. It has two compartments; one has an oil tank at the back which allows oil to flow through a regulating valve into a circular trough which is in the front chamber. That trough is surmounted by a metal sleeve perforated with holes, with a burner at the top. The oil comes through into the circular trough, is vaporised and the vapor mixing with air drawn through the holes in the metal sleeve rises and is ignited at the burner. The Committee on Consumer Protection—the Malony Committee—reported in April last drawing attention to the rising number of fires in proportion to the quantity of paraffin delivered into the home. The figure doubled between 1947 and 1956—which was the last year for which figures were available. The Report considered that more attention should have been paid to these figures. In that, perhaps the Committee were being wise after the event.
In November of last year there was a very great disaster at Ware, in Hertfordshire, in which five children perished. This focused public attention on the danger of these oil stoves. By coincidence, about that time the Fire Research Organisation Obtained, for the first time, the use of a wind tunnel for testing apparatus. As a result of that tragedy, radiant drip-feed heaters were tested in that wind tunnel and the hitherto unsuspected fact came out that when subjected to a draught of more than seven miles an hour these stoves are liable to flare up and catch fire. Why is this? The reasons are very technical, but in a few rather sketchy words, the explanation is this.
Instead of the fuel vaporising, rising and being ignited at the burner, the flame is driven downwards, igniting the oil in the circular trough, which catches alight and passes heat to parts of the apparatus which were not intended to bear heat. This tends to vaporise the
706
oil in the tank and also to ignite any oil spillage or seepage that there maye be. There can be leakage from pinhole defects in the tank due to insufficient welding, or as a result of corrosion through long use. The wind tunnel tests showed this susceptibility of this type of heater to draughts. That was completely unknown to the manufacturers, fire authorities or consumers. The manufacturers were not to blame because they had made the stoves in conformity with the existing British Standards specifications. Perhaps the scientists were too slow to appreciate, from the rising figure of fires, that some unknown hazard was at work—as the Malony Report suggested; but whether they could have "spotted" the defect before they had a wind tunnel to make tests one cannot tell.
At any rate, somebody thought to try a stove of this type in the new wind tunnel, and this defect, of which until then all were in ignorance, was found. As a result of this rather alarming discovery new British Standards specifications were drawn up. By reading a few words of that, I can show the purport. In the foreword to this new British Standards Specification 3300 of 1960 it is stated:
"The main feature of the revision is the inclusion of a draught test. This will ensure that appliances will not create a fire hazard even when exposed to draughts up to as strong as 26 feet per second (17 to 18 miles per hour). A requirement has also been included to limit as much as is practicable the hazard which might result should the appliance be overturned. The specification for the material used in constructing the fuel containers has been strengthened in order to provide against corrosion occurring during the life of the appliance. An additional requirement, again aimed at increasing safety in use, is that every appliance must include some feature which will enable it to be secured either to the floor or the wall to prevent overturning.
"The opportunity has of course been taken to introduce other amendments to bring the standard up to date and to make the appliances generally more efficient and safer."
In addition, there are new stringent provisions about marking. The apparatus must be marked with the manufacturers' name or trade-mark, the manufacturers' type number, the British Standards specification number, a warning against the use of petrol, a warning against carrying when alight, a warning on the need for adequate ventilation, a warning on protection from draughts

707
and a warning against placing the appliance where it can be knocked over, and this is to be on a permanent label to last as long as the useful life of the appliance. So in revising the British Standards specifications opportunity was taken not only to guard against the hitherto unsuspected hazard of draught but also generally to improve the standards of construction of this apparatus.
Meanwhile, the public-spirited Member for Kidderminster, in another place, produced a Private Bill, and on the Committee stage this was redrafted with Government help and represents the Bill before us now. The effect of the Bill is that it will be illegal to sell or stock stoves which do not conform to regulations to be produced by the Home Secretary, and these regulations are expected to provide that all stoves must conform to the new British Standards specifications.
In the Bill itself, Clause 1 provides the power to make regulations; Clause 2 makes it an offence to sell if the stoves do not conform to the regulations; Clause 3 makes the local authority the enforcing body; Clause 4 is a penalty clause—£100 for illegal stocking or selling and £20 for obstructing an inspector. Clauses 5 and 6 are routine. Clause 7 provides that the regulations should be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. Clause 8 is the Interpretation Clause, and that is careful to exclude any oil apparatus which requires the use of a flue running into the open air.
I submit, my Lords, that the Bill is necessary for three reasons. First of all, unsuspected dangers in oil stoves have been found. Secondly, conformity to British Standards specifications is not enforceable by law, and these new Standards specifications not only deal with the new danger but also provide for safeguards against the old and well-known dangers. Thirdly, even if all British manufacturers were to conform to these specifications, it would still be possible for retailers to sell imported goods which did not come up to the British standards. The new season's stoves for selling next winter will be in order. The stocks in the shops, I understand, have been returned and,
708
where possible, modified by the manufacturers.
In another place the Under Secretary drew attention to the fact that some, if not all, manufacturers have offered to make modifications to stoves owned by the general public, but he was very disappointed in the small response there had been up to date. In those circumstances, my Lords, as regards existing stoves in consumers' hands the only thing we can do is to provide for publicity so that the public may appreciate and guard against dangers, which I must emphasise will always exist with oil stoves—and regardless of whether they conform to the new British Standards specification or not. Some dangers, of course, are obvious, like upsetting, and the newly-found danger of the seven-mile-an-hour or over draught is not common. In spite of what some of your Lordships may think you have experienced in your homes, a draught of seven miles an hour is a pretty considerable one and is not common. Providing these unmodified stoves are set up where no uncommon draughts can get at them they are not specially hazardous. The danger of leaking fuel tanks is one which is likely to increase as the years go by, as these things become older and older and corrosion gets to work; and against that only watchfulness and care can possibly guard.
The Bill is expected to work like this. Next winter's models will conform with the British Standards specifications; the Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association have said so. They will be marked with the "kite" mark, have the full instructions permanently fixed to them and will pass as safe under the regulations which are at the moment under discussion with the various interests concerned. The local authority will appoint some or other of their officers to act as inspectors. I may emphasise that I do not think it will be a highly technical matter to be an inspector under this Bill, because the inspector will really only look to see whether the thing has been stamped with the "kite" mark. If it has, I think he will assume that it is all right. But if he finds a stove which is not so stamped he will rightly be suspicious and will then buy it and send it off to some laboratory to be appointed by the Home Secretary where tests can be carried out. If the

709
apparatus fails to pass the test, then that retailer has been committing an offence; but it will be a defence if he can prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the apparatus complied with the regulations.
Deaths on the roads have had—always have had—very great publicity. But I believe I am right in saying that an equal number of people are killed in the home. I do not claim that they are killed by oil stoves; but an oil stove is certainly one of the hazards in the home. Many of these dangers in the home can be guarded against only by people using common sense and care, and by exhortation to use care. But where there is a danger of fire, the State has usually thought it its duty to step in, and to provide statutory safeguards. The Member for Kidderminster, in introducing this Bill in another place, has made it possible for the machinery of the State to step in, and I think that the public owes some degree of gratitude to him for doing so. I think his reasons for thus acting were both public-spirited and very adequate. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
5.42 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it may be convenient to your Lordships if I intervene at this early stage in the debate to review briefly the hazards which this Bill—which my noble friend has moved so ably and with such great clarity over the technical subject of this particular type of stove—seeks to prevent, and the machinery proposed for carrying into effect such prevention.
Oil heaters as a form of domestic heating have rapidly increased in popularity since the war, and there are now some 12 million oil stoves of all sorts in use in homes to-day—of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said 3 million are this particular drip-feed type. The statistical evidence available to the Home Office showed that these heaters were causing an increased number of fires and accidents, and a detailed analysis of these figures was made in 1956. Unfortunately, the information available did not provide a basis for determining whether it was a particular type of heater, especially of the type
710
which the noble Lord has described to us so graphically, or whether it was a defect in design that was responsible.
In November last year, as the noble Lord told us, there was this tragic accident which occurred at Ware, in which a drip-feed oil heater caused the deaths of five young children; and I should like to add my tribute to tributes paid in another place to the coroner, the fire service and the officials of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, for their prompt action in investigating the cause of this tragic fire. It was perhaps a fortunate coincidence in this terrible story that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research had just recently completed the installation of a wind tunnel, which made it possible to carry out experimental tests on the type of heater which caused the accident at Ware, and which my noble friend has already described. A Report of those experiments, during which over 30 models were tested, was published in February of this year, and I do commend this Report to your Lordships. If my noble friend has not already done so, I will place a copy of it in the Library, together with the Report of Mr. Malony, whom noble friend has mentioned, although that, of course, covers a much wider class of dangerous appliances.
This Report established beyond doubt that there was a particular risk associated with the use of the drip-feed oil heaters in draughts such as are encountered in houses in this country with exterior doors or windows which are open. My noble friend has described some of these, and I must say that I am most surprised to find that the draught found was only 7 feet per second. I should have thought a very much higher speed of draught was found in many houses.
LORD HAWKE: It is seven miles an hour, I think, is it not?
EARL BATHURST: Twenty-seven feet per second, I think, was one criterion mentioned, which is apparently a strong draught. I beg my noble friend's pardon; that is seven miles an hour. I should have thought that a draught of seven miles an hour was pretty slow, bearing in mind some houses that I know.
The Report indicated, as my noble friend has said, how heaters could be improved to guard against this hazard.

711
The British Standards Institution promptly incorporated the new feature in the revised standard which they were in the course of preparing, and the revised standard was published on April 11. My noble friend has described the standard. The Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association announced that all drip-feed heaters made in future would comply with this new British standard. Thus, my Lords, a considerable amount has been achieved by the prompt and responsible action on the part of the manufacturers and others concerned, and the Bill to a large extent provides a guarantee for these arrangements. But, my Lords, it does more than that. The safety standards which will be embodied in regulations made under Clause 1 of the Bill will apply to all heaters, including those imported and any that might be made by a manufacturer who was not a party to the agreement that I have just mentioned. It is, indeed, the State contribution which my noble friend mentioned, to enable private individuals to overcome this completely unforeseen fire hazard by such stoves.
Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Home Secretary power to prescribe safety standards for oil heaters, or the component parts of heaters, and to prescribe the labels giving instruction as to the working and use of heaters. I think this latter power is an important one, because no improvements in design can eliminate all risks. Owners must be warned about the simple precautions they should take, such as using the right kind of fuel; and they must be encouraged to use and maintain their appliances in the safest possible way. My noble friend has described how these labels will be marked upon the stoves, and he has also given hints and tips about the safety recommendations. There is one other recommendation which appears in this Report; that is, that if such a stove should catch fire on no account should that stove be moved while still burning. Apparently a bucket of water is sufficient in almost every case completely to douse the fire, and a second bucket of water will make quite certain that the stove cannot ignite a second time. If, as I hope, this Bill becomes law, Her Majesty's Government will lose no time in initiating discussions
712
with a view to making the regulations as rapidly as possible.
Some discussion of the contents of the regulations will, of course, be necessary, for it will not be possible simply to give statutory effect to a new British standard for oil heaters. The standard will provide a useful basis for the regulations, but some of the requirements of the standard deal with matters other than safety, and others are not in a suitable form for incorporation in a statutory instrument. The regulations will be designed to deal with the essential safety points—in particular, protection against the effect of draughts, stability, and the prevention of corrosion in the fuel container, a matter which my noble friend particularly mentioned. I have already referred to the power to prescribe labels to be attached to the heaters.
The method of enforcing these regulations has received much consideration. Short of setting up another Government inspectorate, there were three possibilities open. The first was to rely on manufacturers' and retailers' ensuring, in their own interests, that the regulations would be complied with, and to dispense with any special scheme for inspecting or testing. Local authorities would simply have the power to prosecute when a breach of the regulations came to light. This scheme was rejected as not providing sufficient safeguard to the public. The second possibility was compulsory prototype testing, and certification of every model of heater tested. This would have had to be supported by some system of inspection, to ensure that heaters in production continued to conform to the approved prototype; and, to do the job properly, it would have been necessary to set up a Government inspectorate for this purpose. Moreover, it would not be easy to apply this system to imported heaters, which I have already mentioned.
The third possibility open is that adopted in Clause 3 of my noble friend's Bill—namely, to make local authorities responsible for enforcement by giving them the right of inspection and a power to buy heaters in order to have them tested by approved laboratories. The local authority associations were consulted on the proposed method of enforcement, and none of them objected to this responsibility being conferred

713
upon them. Indeed, your Lordships will no doubt recall that this follows the recommendation made in their interim report by the Committee on Consumer Protection. I must say, however, that sonic preference was expressed, notably by the Association of Municipal Corporations, for the second alternative I mentioned—that is, compulsory prototype testing. However, we still think that there are objections to a compulsory scheme of this kind.
There is every reason to expect that in practice manufacturers will voluntarily submit their heaters to the approved laboratories for testing, both in their own interests and because retailers will demand some guarantee that heaters comply with the regulations. Thus, by arrangement with the manufacturers and the approved laboratories, local authorities should be able to ascertain whether a particular model has been tested. This would avoid unnecessary expense and duplication in testing, and the amount of testing left to be done by the local authorities would be small. I think that the system adopted in this Bill will not in practice be very different from that advocated by some of the local authority associations and it should operate without any undue hardship upon those affected by the Bill.
It can be said that the safeguards proposed for the heaters produced in future are now satisfactory. As to those already in use, I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that arrangements for modifying heaters are now progressing and that by August fourteen of the manufacturers will be in a position to undertake these improvements. I trust that in their own interests members of the public who own these drip-feed stoves will avail themselves, in good time, before winter, of the facilities the manufacturers are offering. My noble friend has particularly referred to this aspect.
My Lords, one of the problems is that we all know that the pressure type of heater is an inherently dangerous gadget. My noble friend said that he was terrified of them, and probably other noble Lords have been afraid of them at one time or another. But the pressure type of oil stove seems to be so satisfactory and warm, and so sturdily built, that it does not occur to the public that it is dangerous, and that it
714
is extremely dangerous when a door or window is unexpectedly opened or left open. In supporting my noble friend Lord Hawke in the Second Reading of this Bill, I welcome the chance to emphasise this to all householders who own these stoves. I am certain that your Lordships will support my noble friend in bringing this measure into law as soon as possible.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I say that I was interested to learn that fourteen manufacturers have agreed to modify existing models. Has he by any chance the possible cost, because no doubt that is what will interest or deter a great many owners?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not know the possible cost, but I understand that the modification, which the noble Lord accurately described, is a simple one and presumably would not cost very much. Possibly I could find out and give noble friend the information at another stage of the Bill.
5.56 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is customary for the Opposition to oppose in principle Bills that are placed before your Lordships' House. It becomes boring to be continually in conflict with noble Lords opposite. And this is certainly an occasion when we can give our utmost support to the Bill the Second Reading of which has been moved this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and which has been supported by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government. On behalf of my noble friends, I should like to congratulate not only the noble Lord but also the promoters of the Bill in another place. They acted with speed to deal with a grave situation.
In some ways this Bill is a sad commentary on the lack of legislation for protecting the consumer. The Government were forced to make a statement in another place on the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on this type of stove, but they were unable to take action, since legislation did not exist as an instrument of Government policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, this Bill was born out of tragedy and frustrated hopes. And I think it would be well if we gave some thought to other

715
dangers which exist in the home. We spend large sums of money every year for the protection of workers in factories, yet we do relatively little to protect people at home. And perhaps the people at home need greater protection than the workers, for in the home we have old people, sometimes absent-minded and sometimes infirm, and young children who have no regard for the danger that may exist in electric plugs and the like. I think it is now time that the Government seriously considered the whole problem of safety in the home.
Last year, over 7,900 people died in home accidents, and for every one who died there must have been 10 or 100 who were seriously injured or maimed. The situation is most grave and action is required. At least the Government should set up an inquiry to find out what types of accident are prevalent in the home, whether they are due to appliances or to construction, to the sort of flooring used or to the sort of fabric used. If we could obtain this information, which I believe does not exist to-day, we might be able to find a pattern that would make it possible for us to have regulations in regard to the building of houses and the materials which should be used, which might help to reduce the terrible toll taken every year.
The Government set up the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection, which produced an Interim Report in April of this year, and I congratulate them upon this step. That Report dealt with a variety of articles where there is certain danger in the home. It dealt with the electric appliances. It showed that there are being imported into this country electric appliances of which the coloured wires do not correspond to the normal codes adopted in this country, and that if somebody was not aware that an appliance was imported a serious accident might well occur. This is quite unnecessary. Surely it only needs a regulation in our import regulations to say that the wiring of an imported article must correspond with the standard specification laid down and adopted by the British manufacturers. We also have the cases of electric blankets and the dangers that may arise from them. There was the question of Christmas tree lighting, where again danger arises, and of toys. The house seems to be full of
716
articles which are a danger to those people who do not know how to look after them or how to use them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, when he introduced this Bill, maintained that the danger became apparent very quickly. But surely he must be aware that there has been over the years a considerable increase in accidents and in deaths. In 1956 there were 1,200 fires caused by oil-burning appliances; in 1958, only two years later, the number rose to 4,464; and during the months of January and March this year 11 people lost their lives due to oil burners.
I do not put great blame upon the manufacturers. Many of them have done their best to maintain the highest possible standards. There are, however, certain factories whose equipment falls far short of what is regarded as a safe standard for the lifetime of an appliance. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned, there is a fear in relation to certain of the appliances that the tank and the connections are so fragile that they will become dangerous through corrosion.
I am glad that this Bill has been brought in. At least we shall know that this coming winter the stoves that will be on sale will be up to a specification agreed by the Government. But what concerns me is the 3 million-odd appliances that have already been distributed. This winter they will be one year older and, therefore, less efficient and far more liable to cause fire. When the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, announced the report of his Department on these burners we made a plea, which he accepted, that there should be wide publicity. There was certainly wide publicity at that time; but since then I am not conscious of any publicity by the local authorities, by the manufacturers, or even by the oil companies. No doubt sales have gone down, but that may be due to the summer weather.
I agree with the two noble Lords who have spoken that there must be far more publicity in this matter. These 3 million stoves that exist are a great threat. We understand from the noble Earl that fourteen manufacturers have agreed to take them back. Do the public know which manufacturers are prepared to take them back? Do they know the trade marks connected with the manufacturer? It is no good the manufacturer saying that

717
he will take them back without the public knowing the name of the manufacturer and the trade mark. The public must also know the method by which the equipment is to be returned. Is it to be returned direct to the manufacturer, or to the retailer, who will send it forward? These matters require publicity.
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, because he may give a misleading impression by what he has said. He referred to "taking them back". I think it may well occur to people who read the Report of this debate that the manufacturer is agreeing to take the apparatus back and refund the money, which I suspect to be not the case. I assume that they are agreeing to take them back for modification at the consumers' expense.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I appreciate that the manufacturer is taking them back for modification, which I understand cannot be done in the retail shop or in the home, and that they have got to go back to the factory. But the noble Lord will see my point: that the public must know which factories are prepared to take them back and the method to be adopted for collection and redistribution. The public would also like to know which factories are not prepared to take them back. I hope that the noble Earl will put that suggestion to the night quarter.
What can the oil companies do? The oil companies are the people who penetrate right into the home. They supply the oil. I would ask the noble Earl whether his Department could not approach the oil companies and point out to them that they are the real people who can get into the home and draw the attention of the public to the dangers of the equipment, and to what can be done to get it modified and to make it safe. The oil companies may be a little loth to advertise a weakness in an appliance of which their oil is an integral part, but I believe that it is a public service which they would accept; and I am sure that, in the long run, they would gain by it.
The only other point I want to make is this. I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was right when he said that if the inspector felt that
718
there was an appliance in a shop without the "kite" trade mark he would purchase the appliance and send it for examination. As I understand it, the regulations will lay down that all appliances must show the "kite" trade mark, and if they do not, it will be an infringement under the Bill. I understand that to be the case, but I think we should get it clear from the public point of view that no appliance sold in a shop after the passage of this Bill and the regulations should be bought without the "kite" trade mark on it. We do not want any mix-up in the public mind: if they are buying these stoves, they must insist that they carry the "kite" trade mark.
As I understand it, the Home Secretary will be responsible for these regulations. Certain of these appliances, I believe, are imported. I wonder whether the Board of Trade, who are responsible for the regulations governing imports, could not be brought into the discussions with the Home Secretary to see that none of the imported appliances which do not come up to the standards is imported into this country. It is going to be difficult to inspect every shop. About the shops which sell their merchandise openly we have no basic fear. It is the smaller shops round the corner who often sell cheap, imported merchandise. I am sure that if we can prevent the importation of appliances which do not come up to the standards, we shall be going a long way to meeting the objects of this Bill. That is all I wish to say. I fully support this Bill, and my noble friends on this side of the House will do everything possible to speed it up. In fact, the sooner it is on the Statute Book the better.
6.12 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I am certain that not only your Lordships' House but the country as a whole will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Hawke and to the honourable gentleman the Member for Kidderminster for initiating this Bill. I propose to be brief, because I may have to crave your Lordships' indulgence for leaving early owing to a long-standing political engagement in Farnham.
Speaking as a parent of young children, I feel strongly about this Bill and any other measure which can make for increased safety in the home. I possess

719
one of these drip-feed oil heaters made by one of the pioneers, Rippingills, and I contend that they are one of the best and safest oil heaters in the country. Common sense must obviously enter into this matter. If the heater is going to be filled in front of an open fire—and some people even go to those crazy limits—of course an accident will occur. The particular model which I have works on the system of two cylindrical bottles which are filled with the requisite oil, and they are placed to act on the plasma drip system. I always fill my bottles in the garage, where they cannot come into contact with an open fire, and the heater is then lit in relative safety—in other words, the oil is not placed directly into the heater as in some makes, which could make it much less safe.
It is, of course, children who are the principal victims of these tragedies. I believe I am right in saying that in the dreadful fire at Ware it was largely due to lack of parental supervision. The children were allowed in a room alone and presumably tampered with this heater. I think it should be impressed upon parents that oil heaters are lethal weapons, and that children should not touch them. I know from experience that it is difficult to watch a young child the whole time, and children must obviously come into contact with danger. But it is largely the responsibility of the parents to prevent these accidents. The Government can bring in legislation and the oil companies can make suggestions, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his reference to the increased accidents in the home, that unless it is impressed upon parents and householders generally that these things are lethal weapons these accidents will continue.
Subsection (1) of Clause 2, referring to the seller of an oil heater says that if:
"the oil heater does not bear instructions in compliance with the requirements of any regulations made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (b) of section one of this Act,
he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guilty of an offence."
A label attached to an oil heater is not sufficient, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the possibility of making it compulsory for manufacturers of oil heaters to have printed on
720
the heater in a prominent place instructions on how they are to be operated.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think that that is precisely what the British Standards specification says.
LORD AUCKLAND: I am grateful to my noble friend. I think the more prominent place the better, because so often with heaters of all kinds one gets printed instructions which get lost or burned, and somebody might try to fill the heater, switch on or light the fire and have no idea as to how to do it. That is all I have to say, but I feel sure that the country as a whole will welcome this Bill as an attempt to curb the fearful toll of tragedies in our homes to-day.
6.17 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of Her Majesty's Government, and I am grateful for the services and facilities which have been put at my disposal by the officials of the Home Office. I hope my noble friend Lord Bathurst will be able to produce some more information at the next stage or at some stage of the Bill about this modification by the fourteen manufacturers. I am grateful to the Opposition in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his support of the Bill and his pertinent remarks about consumer protection in the home generally. There is probably a great deal in what he said about imports of cheap electrical apparatus. But as one who in some respects is rather old-fashioned and conservative in thought, I personally do not see any need for cheap electrical imports at all. However, there would be a great opportunity no doubt for the Member for Kidderminster to produce another Bill on the subject of electrical appliances.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is quite right when he says that we must have more publicity about the dangers, particularly the dangers we are dealing with to-day. I am not quite sure how that can be done, but there are many media available to-day, and I for one should be very interested. I would even forswear my lack of allegiance to television to watch the Home Secretary and the Member for Kidderminster having a debate upon the subject.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, if I may interrupt for one moment, may I

721
say that Her Majesty's Government are also most concerned about the propaganda to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred. I will most certainly bring all his remarks to my right honourable friend's notice and will write to the noble Lord personally to let him know, so far as I can, how far progress and discussions have reached. It might be a suitable question which I invite the noble Lord to raise at a convenient time in your Lordships' House.
LORD HAWKE: I am certain that a debate between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Member for Kidderminster would be a very popular item in the evening programme. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about the regulations and the "kite" mark. The regulations cannot make it compulsory to stick a "kite" mark on the article; they can only make it compulsory that the apparatus shall conform with certain standards. The manufacturer might say, "My trade mark is better than a 'kite' mark. I conform to the standards, but I am going to stick only my trade mark on." In any case a foreigner cannot stick a "kite" mark on; so that would be impossible under the regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for his support, and also as a father of young children I can say that these things are highly dangerous if used improperly or meddled with.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, might I ask a question? I was going to ask it in my speech. In Clause 4, which deals with offences, it states that a person guilty of an offence under this Bill will be liable to a fine not exceeding £100. Presumably that is for the first offence. It is normal, I believe, in cases like this, to have a ladder of fines for further infringements. Can the noble Lord give an explanation why that has not been done in this Bill?
LORD HAWKE: I am extremely ill-qualified to speak about fines in magistrates' courts, because I really know nothing about them at all. If the noble Lord casts his mind back to the Offices Bill, I think he will remember that a
722
very similar clause was in that Bill, and I do not think there was an escalator clause in it. At any rate, £100 a time is rather heavy for the selling of a stove which does not conform with the regulations. I have no doubt that for the first offence the man would not be fined the full amount.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time, so that it may be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That; the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House, That the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on the 22nd instant discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past six o'clock.