Lords Sitting of 19 May 1960

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell

MAPS OF CONGESTED TRAFFIC AREAS
LORD BOSSOM: 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 whether they will publish, or arrange to have published, maps of London and other great cities indicating places of serious congestion, thus enabling motorists to arrange alternative routes for themselves to avoid these places.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, this interesting suggestion has been considered before, but producing congestion maps which would be both reliable and not too complicated would involve over-corning real difficulties. These include changes in the location of places of serious congestion from time to time, and indeed from one part of the day to another. There has, therefore, been a general preference for maps positively recommending through-routes. The motoring organisations themselves work on these lines, and a Ministry of Transport map of through-routes in the London Area has been available since 1953.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is it not a fact that in the other place the Minister himself said there were nine places, particularly in London, where congestion occurred, which are not shown on any particular map now issued?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that rather proves the contents of my original Answer. It is extremely difficult to produce a map which is accurate, owing to the shifting nature of congestion that takes place on roads.
LORD BOSSOM: I thank the noble Lord for that answer.

POSTAL CHARGES FOR POSTCARDS
LORD HAWKE: 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 is the maximum-sized card which the Post Office will carry at the normal 2½d. rate; and whether there has been any change of policy in this matter.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the maximum size for postcards intended to go at the 2½d. rate is 5⅞ inches by 4⅛ inches. There has been no change of policy in this matter.
LORD HAWKE: While thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask whether, if the Postmaster General sees fit to advertise on his postal vans that larger cards cost 3d., he will do the same on the booklets of stamps which he sells?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, while sympathising with my noble friend for the financial loss that he privately told me about beforehand, I will convey his suggestion to my right honourable friend.

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNALS AND SUBPŒNAS
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: 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 whether they have received the Report of the Committee on the issue of subpoenas for the purposes of disciplinary tribunals of professional bodies.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): Yes, my Lords. The Report has been laid before Parliament and will be published at four o'clock this afternoon. The House will wish to join with me in expressing our thanks to the Chairman, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and to Lord Thomson for their valuable services.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I associate myself with my noble and learned friend's remarks concerning the appreciation which we have for the work of this Committee, and assure him that the professional bodies will be very glad indeed to know that the Report is ready.

SOUTH AFRICA AND RETURN OF POLITICAL REFUGEES
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: 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 requests they have received from the Government of South Africa for the return to the Union of persons who have taken refuge in the Protectorates of Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland; and if they will make a Statement.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have received no such requests. No doubt the noble Viscount has in mind recent Press reports of statements made in the South African House of Assembly. The High Commissioner was immediately asked to forward the official record and to seek from the South African Government an elucidation of what was said.
I want to make two points clear now. No negotiations are in progress with the South African Government on this subject. The border between the High Commission Territories and the Union is and always has been open, subject to the immigration laws in force from time to time. A small number of people have arrived in the Territories from the Union in recent weeks. Some of these have said that they have come for political reasons. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to compel them to return to the Union on political grounds, though your Lordships will recognise that the question of return to answer criminal charges would be a matter for the courts.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure the
1056
House is greatly indebted to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and may I say in this case the Secretary of State, for the Answer he has given to the Question. I hope that we may know the results of the elucidation he is seeking of the statements unfortunately made in South Africa by Ministers in South Africa and that these may help us to get a better understanding later on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Perth will be making a statement, at a suitable time after 3.30, about the discussions that have been held with Nigerian Ministers.

BROMLEY COLLEGE AND OTHER CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALMULREE: My Lords, Bromley College was founded by John Warner, Bishop of Rochester, in 1671. It now houses 45 necessitous widows of clergymen, preference being given to those coming from the Diocese of Rochester. The Bill provides for an overhaul of the existing code of administration, including providing nursing care for residents. Shepherd's College is a wing of five houses erected by Miss Shepherd in the grounds of Bromley College to house daughters who have lived there with their mothers and have become disqualified by their death. It is a separate foundation, with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Rochester as trustees, but in practice it is managed by the Trustees of Bromley College. The Bill consolidates as one the two foundations. The change requires the consent of Parliament. It has been widely publicised and no objection has been raised. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

CHIPPING SODBURY TOWN TRUST SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, this is a Bill dealing with two stretches of land called Stub and Mead Ridings held for the benefit of the inhabitants of Chipping Sodbury. At present the land is regulated by a Charity Commissioners scheme of 1899. In 1941 the Gloucestershire War Agricultural Committee took over the land and ploughed it. It was derequisitioned in 1954 and has since been used for mowing and grazing in alternate years. The old system of land user is now impracticable as the old landmarks have been obliterated by ploughing. The Bill provides a new scheme to enable trustees to deal with land at best advantage as an agricultural endowment of the Charity and the benefit of the inhabitants of Chipping Sodbury. The consent of Parliament is required. No objections have been received. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

UNITED CHARITIES OF NATHANIEL WATERHOUSE AND OTHER CHARITIES (HALIFAX) SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to enable 24 old almshouses to be demolished, together with one school which is no longer used as a school, and to build 24 new almshouses for the same purpose. It is therefore necessary to modify the present educational trust and to reconstitute the body of trustees. The almshouses and school were completed in 1808, but the school building ceased to be used for educational purposes in 1919 and was then used for a childrens' home. Under the Children Act, 1949, the premises were deemed unsuitable. The income of the trust will be used for maintaining the almshouses, after payment to 12 ministers of religion for one sermon a month in
1058
the parish church, and also for helping young persons from the district leaving school to establish themselves in a trade, profession or calling. There is a rather obscure provision in the old trust deed, for afternoon lectures of some sort. This is now going to be used for providing religious instruction for the people in the almshouses. There have been no objections locally, but the authority of Parliament is required for this change.
Before I move the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to say that this is a sad and mournful occasion for me, because this is the last time upon which I shall have the opportunity of moving these Charity Bills in your Lordships' House. Under the Charities Bill, which we have already passed and which is before another place, these matters will be dealt with by the Minister and will be subject to Affirmative Resolution. I should like, therefore, to thank your Lordships for the kind and gentle way you have accepted the Bills which I have brought before you, and to express my sorrow that l shall no longer be performing this function. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us whether the almshouses which it is proposed to demolish are of any architectural importance.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am assured that they are of little architectural importance. They are not at all well designed; they are in a bad state of repair, and I do not think that the country, will suffer from their demolition.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, before I put the Question, I am sure all your Lordships would like me to thank Lord Amulree on your behalf for the work he has done in this connection. I am sorry, as the introducer of the Charities Bill, to have been the voluntary executioner whose knife is falling upon him; but I should like him to know that I and everyone else appreciate the most interesting way in which he has put these Bills before us.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to add one word. I represent a

1059
body which has had uniformly happy relations with the Commissioners whom the noble Lord represents, and which much regrets the change that is taking place.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I have made what inquiries I can, and I understand that it would be acceptable to the House if I moved the consideration of these Amendments together: in which case, and by leave of the House, I move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The references are to Bill (73) as first printed for the House of Commons.]
  Clause 8, page 8, line 40, at end insert—
  (" (6) Any such authorisation shall have effect as from such date as may be specified therein: and in fixing that date, in the case of an authorisation where copies of the certificate are required to be sent as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection, the Minister or Ministers concerned—

  (a) shall have regard to the time at which those copies may be expected to be sent, and

  (b) shall fix a date appearing to him or them to be such as will allow an interval of not less than twenty-eight days after that time before the authorisation has effect,

  unless in his or their opinion it is necessary that the coming into operation of the authorisation should be immediate or should otherwise be expedited.")
  Clause 10, page 11, line 6, after ("disposal,") insert ("or accumulation")
  line 11, after ("disposal,") insert ("or accumulation").
  Clause 13, page 15, line 39, leave out ("with the authority of") and insert ("in accordance with any general or special directions given by").
  Clause 18, page 20, line 14, after first ("of") insert ("the").
  Clause 21, page 24, line 12, leave out from ("in") to ("statutory") in line 24 and insert ("section nine of this Act 'enactment' includes an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland").
  First Schedule, page 27, line 5, at end insert—

  PART III
  Northern Ireland
  17. Sections eighty and ninety-one of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1842.
  18. Section seventeen of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1863.
  19. Section ten of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1869.
  20. Sections two to five and section seven of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876.
  21. The following provisions of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, that is to say, sections fifty, fifty-one, fifty-four, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, one hundred and seven, one hundred and twenty-nine and one hundred and thirty.
  22. Sections seventeen and twenty-six of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890.
  23. Subsection (2) of section five of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896.
  24. Sections thirty-five, forty-six, forty-nine and fifty-one of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907.
  25. Section eleven of the Water Supplies and Sewerage Act (Northern Ireland). 1945.
  26. Any enactment which may be passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland for purposes similar to those of section ten or section sixteen of the Clean Air Act, 1956.")
  Third Schedule, page 28, line 17, column 2, leave out ("1") and insert ("2")leave out line 19.
  Third Schedule, page 28, line 23, column 2, leave out ("1") and insert ("7")
  Third Schedule, page 28, line 24, column 2, leave out ("1") and insert ("3").
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

OFFICES BILL
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, this Bill, which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships' House, was given a Second Reading in the House of Commons on December 11. It was opposed on that occasion by the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Home Office, but the Motion was carried, and indeed it was pleasing to note that four Conservative Members of another place voted for the Second Reading. Subsequently, the Government, I think most properly, said in Committee that they would accept the decision of the House, and they indeed made a Money Resolution available which was necessary if the Bill was to proceed. No major changes were made in Committee, and the Third Reading was duly passed. It is probable that at a later date a major Bill will be introduced by Her Majesty's Government which will embody those recommendations of the Gowers Report which are not covered in this Bill.
The Bill has had a long history. It was first introduced, I think, by Mr. C. W. Bowerman as long ago as 1910, and since then it has frequently been introduced into Parliament, but without success, until this occasion; though as the Bills were considered some quite minor concessions were made by the Governments of the day and the Ministry of Health issued circulars about them. One occasion when it was introduced was in 1937, by our late colleague, Lord Ammon, then Mr. C. G. Ammon; and there was another occasion when it was introduced by another Member of the House of Commons, in 1958. That was the last occasion until this Bill came to us. So it has had a long history and a long discussion, and I think that we would now generally agree that, as the Factories Acts cover industrial workers in many respects for their protection in the factories, it is right that clerks and other people who work in offices should have a similar, or at any rate a substantial, degree of protection as regards amenities and safety; so that this Bill seems to me to be reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
1062
There was a survey carried out in the City of Liverpool about the condition of offices—there has been no national—survey and the Corporation of Liverpool found that as regards washing facilities only 176 occupiers, which represented 65 per cent., had wash hand basins, and of these 109 had no hot water laid on. In 189 offices 70 per cent. of the staff had mid-day meals at their desks, 15 offices had room for tea and sandwiches, and 6 of these provided meals. Only 38 per cent. had a drinking water supply in their own office, and 16 firms had no drinking water at all. This revealed an unsatisfactory situation in the City of Liverpool, and I have no doubt that approximately the same result would have been found in a considerable number of the cities of our country.
Lighting has been found by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to be somewhat imperfect. There is overcrowding in a number of the offices and, unfortunately, sanitary accommodation is extensively deficient. It would seem reasonable that there should be an immediate provision of sanitary accommodation, which is not properly provided for at this time. So the Gowers Committee did a useful work and indeed made recommendations more extensive than those which are covered in the Bill.
A number of letters have been received by my honourable friend who introduced the Bill in the House of Commons, some of which reveal a very sad state of affairs. One is from the wife of the chairman of a company. He was shocked when he found it was from his wife, and she, too, is shocked about it. It reveals a very serious state of affairs. Indeed, the lady says in a letter to "Dear Woman's Hour"—these women's papers seem to have been taking an interest in this matter:
"I wonder if he"—
that is, the Member who was criticising the Bill,
"knows that in at least one apparently palatial office block (built between the wars) where the office accommodation, is superb the room marked 'Ladies' has three lavatories with partitions which do not reach the ceiling and three wash-hand basins lined up against the nearest lavatory partition which also does not reach the ceiling. And does he know that when he is given a cup of

1063
tea or a glass of sherry in one of the grand offices, his cup and glass have to be washed up in one of these hand-basins?"
Another lady who has been working in an office says:
"On entering the building (three storeys high) one is met with clean, highly polished floors, this continues up to the first floor on which the partners' offices are situate. This is as far as the client sees. As soon as you leave the first floor and ascend to the second you are met by plain stairs, with no lino or covering whatsoever. This next floor is where the partners' secretaries are, three in one room hardly big enough to swing a cat. Should the boss be out and a telephone call comes through, you have to leave the room and take the call on an old chest on the landing. Whilst taking the call you learn to keep your eyes glued to the floor in case one of the many hundreds of rats (or are they exceptionally lane mice) run across the floor."
Those conditions ought not to exist and I am sure that these troubles will meet with your Lordships' sympathetic consideration.
There is another lady, who writes to "Dear May Abbott", who says:
"Three women (including myself) had to work all day at the back of the shop where there was no daylight, ventilation, fresh air or sunshine at all. The only illumination was a miserable, naked electric bulb."
This lady worked there in the middle of the summer. She says:
"You can imagine how hot and stuffy the place was. On top of all that, there were some stags' heads hung up which sported thick layers of dust and I was told that undoubtedly they would fall to pieces if anybody dared to try and dust them."
I may say that these ladies left that employment and got a job where facilities were rather better. I have mentioned these considerations to your Lordships because it is serious that these conditions should exist in the year 1960; and I feel it is right that there should be reasonable protection for the employed persons who are concerned.
I will very briefly summarise the provisions in the Bill. Clause 1 proceeds by enabling regulations to be made by the Secretary of State—which is probably a better procedure than setting out the details in the Statute itself. The Secretary of State may make regulations for the provision of "sufficient and suitable sanitary conveniences," with separate accommodation for persons of each sex; the provision of adequate and suitable facilities for washing which shall include soap and clean towels or other suitable means of cleaning and drying; for the
1064
prevention of overcrowding; the provision of sufficient and suitable lighting; the provision of reasonable temperature; the provision of effective and suitable methods of maintaining adequate ventilation, and the provision of adequate and suitable accommodation for clothing not worn by employees during working hours; and to ensure that the offices shall be kept clean. It is provided that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the provision of efficient means of escape in the event of fire; to ensure the provision of adequate supplies of drinking water; for the maintenance of first-aid equipment; for the inspection and maintenance of electrical equipment and to provide for the fencing of dangerous parts of any machinery or equipment used in offices.
I think it is perfectly right, therefore, that in the Bill it is provided that before making regulations the Secretary of State should consult such organisations as appear to be involved. Those would, of course, include bodies representing the employers, and the trade unions or the Trades Union Congress. It is also provided in the Bill, in order to protect the rights of Parliament (as these are extensive powers for the making of regulations), that regulations shall be made by statutory instrument and that such regulations shall not be effective or in force unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. That, I believe, protects our Parliamentary institutions. In a case of proceedings against a person it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he used all due diligence to secure compliance with the provisions.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 5 deals with the possibilities of accidents, and their notification in writing to the proper authorities. In the case of a factory covered by the Factories Acts, to avoid the need for two sets of inspectors to enter the building it is provided that this part of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, shall be administered by inspectors under the authority of the Minister of Labour. It is also provided that any person admitted to an office for the purposes of the Bill who improperly discloses anything about the work that is going on there may be subject to penalties. The penalties for

1065
offences under the Bill are set out in Clause 10.
In the definition clause (Clause 12), we have the definition of those authorities who will employ these inspectors. It is provided that in England and Wales (except the Administrative County of London) the authority to enforce the Act—and it is a duty upon them to enforce it—shall be the council of a county borough or county district. That leaves out the county councils, and I imagine the reason is that the officers who are to enforce the Act will be public health inspectors, who used to be called "sanitary inspectors", and they are employed by county boroughs and county districts and not by county councils. Similarly, as regards the Administrative County of London, the authorities will be the Corporation of the City of London and the Metropolitan borough councils; and in Scotland, the county or town councils—so that the same principle runs through the Bill.
Finally, Clause 14 provides that the Act shall come into force on January 1, 1962. I believe that the proposed delay in its coming into force arises from the necessity for the Secretary of State to prepare regulations and to give time to the employers concerned for them to try to adapt themselves to the new situation before the new regulations become effective. I think that this is a reasonable Bill. There is nothing extravagant about it; in fact, there is rather a case for widening or stiffening it a little in some respects. But the Bill has to go back to another place when your Lordships have done with it, and I think it is better that it should go as it is because otherwise delay might be caused. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a reasonable and modest measure. Some, indeed, may think it is rather too modest a measure. But it is a reasonable Bill and, therefore, in those circumstances, I trust that your Lordships will give it sympathetic consideration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I say that I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth (whose heart is in the right place, as I have known for some 30 years
1066
or more), was very badly briefed on his examples. There were three water closets in this place and the walls did not go up to the roof. I know of at least three in this House where the walls do not go up to the roof. Is it really necessary that they should in all cases? Is not ventilation easier if they do not? And then, the secretaries did not have linoleum on the stairs. Is it necessary that they should have linoleum on the stairs? And is it to be expected that the secretary shall have the same quality of passages and stairs as the bosses? That is not the case in Ministries; nor was it even when the noble Lord was a Minister at the Home Office. I wonder whether there is not a lot of "sob stuff" about this which ought not to lead us into unwise and ill-thought-out legislation.
For my part, I feel disposed to congratulate the Member of Parliament in another place who introduced this Bill, because he was urging the Government to do what they should have done a year or two before and was ensuring that they would do it during the next year or two. But that is the only merit to be found in the Bill. Nevertheless, it does give this power, and I suppose it will be good for it to go forward and thus to encourage the Government to bring out a proper Bill. But might I ask, if regulations are to be made under this Bill, that they will not take into account unnecessary and absurd differentiations such as those which the noble Lord put in his examples; and, in particular, that they will not discourage small businesses that are starting up by making conditions quite impossible for them? A tiny business with two or three clerks, which may develop into a great enterprise—I imagine that even the Co-operative Society must have started in that way once upon a time—does not need to be discouraged by having to have lavatories with walls up to the roof, linoleum on the secretary's floor, and taps with hot water. All these things are not really necessary for hardy Britons, and especially for small businesses.
3.35 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not think I can take part in the arguments between the noble Lord opposite, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale about the benefits or otherwise of lavatory walls going to the roof or to the

1067
ceiling. I must say that I have always wondered why they do not do that, but I suppose it is one stage better than having no lavatory walls at all, which is, of course, the case in so many of Her Majesty's establishments, which no doubt many noble Lords—the younger ones, anyhow—have used to their discomfort. I think I shall come later on in my speech to the problems my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale raised in conjunction with what was said by the noble Lord who introduced this Bill.
I think it would be to your Lordships' convenience if I were to intervene at this stage in the Second Reading debate, so that I can give Her Majesty's Government's views upon this Bill and upon the problems that it raises; and then, possibly, by leave of your Lordships, I might speak just before the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, winds up, if that is found to be necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, the object of the Bill follows on the recommendations of the 1949 Gowers Report. I believe that the noble Baroness opposite, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was one of the members of the Committee. The Committee acknowledged that health and accident statistics relating to offices were very difficult to come by; and, indeed, that is the case to-day. There are many statistics, but unfortunately they do not prove a great deal to us. There is one lot of statistics which shows, however, that from 1944 to 1951 clerical workers were not absent from work to any greater extent than any other group of workers. But, as I say, these statistics can be used to such an extent that they can be made to prove almost anything.
The Committee also recognised that economics was the really important factor to be taken into consideration in any proposals to remedy the bad office accommodation about which we have heard from the noble Lord opposite and from my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. In particular there are the capital costs and the high value of coveted office building sites. The noble Lord mentioned the Liverpool survey, and no doubt as office building takes place a great many of those "black spots" will be remedied. There is no doubt, I think, that competition between firms which are building new offices, or
1068
which have new offices in the building, definitely leads to the desired improvements we all want—at any rate, desired improvements internally. Whether the outside effect is so satisfactory is open to question. I see that there is a new office block eighteen storeys high, announced to-day in the London County Council's plans, and it is hoped, so it is said, that in this instance the finished building will be both interesting and satisfactory from all angles. I hope that that will prove to be so for my noble friend Lord Conesford, who I think is not in his place this afternoon.
Throughout the country it has been estimated that £70 million has been spent this year on new office accommodation; that is, for the whole of the United Kingdom. In the London area alone 21 million square feet of office accommodation have been completed since the war and 9 million square feet are under construction at the present time, the results of which your Lordships will see, no doubt, across the river in the very near future. Also, there are at the present time 5½ million square feet with planning permission, no doubt part of which I have just mentioned.
The Gowers Committee recommended that there should be minimum standards prescribed for office workers' conditions. Your Lordships will appreciate this principle. At the same time, we have to appreciate the problem of formulating those standards for the different sorts of offices, as my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale explained to us. Regulations, however, will clearly lay down the standards required for all the points set out in Clause 1, which the noble Lord opposite, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, mentioned when he introduced the Bill.
I cannot yet say what those standards will be, but consultation will take place at every level with all parties before these regulations are made; and then the regulations will be subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Certainly these regulations will be flexible and can be varied, added to or subtracted from, as the case may require. Some of the points which the regulations will cover may be relatively simple, and the regulations could be ready sooner than otherwise, for obvious reasons; it is not our intention

1069
to hold back these simple points until the overall regulations are ready. Preparatory work and consultation and discussion with all parties who are concerned will be carried out with a view to having as many regulations as possible ready to be made when the Bill comes into operation on January 1, 1962.
All the provisions of the Bill will be worked through regulations to be prescribed by my right honourable friend the Minister—and in this respect, my Lords, this Bill differs from the Factories Act. In spite of what the noble Lord opposite has said, I think it may not be agreed by all your Lordships that this legislation by regulation is the most suitable and tidy method; but the real trouble has been that there just has not been time to re-write completely the Bill that the noble Lord opposite has introduced. As I said, it will at any rate prove to be a really flexible instrument—sufficiently flexible to attain its objectives.
There is, as the noble Lord pointed out, provision for sharing the responsibility between the landlord and the occupier; and, equally, between the office worker and the boss. Those are provisions laid down in the Bill. Clause 6 deals with inspection and enforcement, and this will fall to the local authorities except in the case of offices within the factory curtilage, which the noble Lord opposite mentioned: these offices will be the responsibility of the factory inspectorate. I understand that there was a view in another place that the same should apply to offices in the curtilage of a mine or quarry, and I believe that there will be consultation with the noble Lord opposite to bring something to this effect into this Bill at a later stage in your Lordships' House. Particular aspects of enforcement raise difficult and complex problems, as I am sure the noble Lord opposite will understand; and there are also different opinions and different ideas about who should enforce certain specific points. However, all these points will be the subject of consultation before the regulations are made.
As the Bill stands, I can advise your Lordships to give it a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. I assure the noble Lord opposite that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to
1070
make it a workable instrument which will achieve the desirable aims which the noble Lord and his friends have in mind.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, before he sits down, could the noble Earl give us any indication what total expenditure, both as regards the central Government factory inspectorate and the local government inspectorate, will be involved in the future for inspection and enforcement? I think the House would like to know particularly what sum is involved.
EARL BATHURST: So far as the factory offices are concerned—that is, offices within the factory curtilage—I understand that there is practically no extra expenditure at all, because, obviously, the same men who inspect the factories will at the same time go through the offices concerned. With regard to the local authority inspectorate, the duties will fall upon their officials who are already employed doing that type of work, but whether or not more officials will have to be taken on will depend on the amount of work that appears as a result of the Bill. I do not think I can say any more than that.
3.43 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to rise briefly to support this Bill which is at present before your Lordships' House. It has always seemed a rather curious thing that it is more than 100 years since Edwin Chadwick first advanced his principles of environmental hygiene, upon which most of our cities and towns are built. He showed quite clearly that health was affected by environment, in the sense that if you have bad environment you tend to get bad health; whereas if you have a reasonable environment you tend to get reasonable health. Although, as the noble Earl has said, it is very difficult to judge from the statistics, certainly on the statistical side there seems to be little difference between office workers and the rest of the population, and it would seem likely that they suffer some drawbacks by working in unsatisfactory conditions.
The two things which most offices generally have are first some form of water supply which, because it comes from the regular source, is

1071
generally of a wholesome character; and they generally have some form of sewage disposal which is discharged into the sewers and is safe, particularly if it is in a built-up area. I knew one small office that was occupied by a charitable body in which I was interested. They had their premises in the City. They were rather difficult, old-fashioned office buildings. There was no ventilation or cross-ventilation at all. If one opened one of the windows it was impossible to hear what was going on inside the office; if one shut the window one was then suffocated, so it was very complicated. The sanitary arrangements were of an extremely primitive type. I am pleased to say that that building is not there now—not because it was thought to be unhygienic but because the authorities wanted to widen the road on which it stood; it fell victim to a road-widening scheme rather than being condemned from a sanitary point of view.
This Bill is therefore a very welcome Bill and certainly, from many points of view, an overdue Bill. One thing I am pleased to see is that provision is to be made for the notification of accidents in offices. That is a matter we know very little about but, as we know from the work involved to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, a surprising number of accidents do occur in people's homes, and probably a substantial number occur also in offices. Some are caused because of a lack of proper lighting, some because holes and cracks have worn in the linoleum. These are all things which a proper form of inspectorate could see do not occur in the future. One does not like too many inspectors going around anywhere—it is a deplorable state of affairs. There should not need to be a single inspector; but the world being what it is, they are necessary. I am very pleased to see that this matter is to be dealt with by the health inspectors of the local authority and not by some new inspectorate run by the Home Office.
One point which has seemed to me to be a difficulty in regard to the inspectorate is that the inspectors come round from time to time, but they are busy people who have a lot to do. I take it that it will be possible, if somebody
1072
working in an office feels that he has cause to call in an inspector, for the inspector to go round and that there will be no question of his having to wait until the office comes on his particular quota. These are the only very minor comments which I have to make on the Bill, which I welcome, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
3.48 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I should like to join in the thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth for introducing this Bill. To an ex-railwayman whose association has, for many years, endeavoured to get an Office Regulation Bill on the Statute Book, this Bill is of course very welcome. I myself spent many weary hours discussing with L.M.S. officers (as they then were) many instances of inadequate office accommodation. Therefore, obviously, I have looked at this Bill rather carefully, bearing in mind my experience in the railway service.
I would refer to Clause 6 on that particular point. Clause 6—subject, of course, to the exceptions in Clause 7—places upon local authorities the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of the Bill and any regulations. But may I, with respect, call attention to the words used? Subsection (2) (a) says:
"any officer … may … enter at all reasonable hours any office or any premises which he has reasonable cause to believe to be an office …",
and so on. May I put this point? A railway office or, it may be, an office of a tenant of British Railways is situated some 50 or more yards inside a goods yard, and in order to reach it an inspector would have to proceed through the goods yard. I would not for a moment suggest that the Railway Executive would deny reasonable access, but the point has occurred to me, in reading the clause, that it empowers an inspector to enter only an office, or premises which he has reason to believe are being used as an office; and, obviously, 50 yards of goods yard would not be premises used as an office. This may seem a minor point, but one never knows what may arise subsequently and we do not want any legal "trip-up". I think that it is as well that we should have this point cleared up before the Bill finally becomes law. Perhaps I am remiss in not raising this with my noble friend Lord Morrison

1073
of Lambeth beforehand, and I do not ask for a reply new. But I think that it is as well to have this reasonable doubt recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT for subsequent reference, if necessary.

DISCUSSIONS WITH NIGERIAN MINISTERS
3.52 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, if it is convenient to your Lordships, perhaps I may now make a statement similar to that which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary on the discussions with Nigerian Ministers which ended to-day.
The primary object was to settle a number of points in the drafting of the Constitutions for Independence but other matters wore also dealt with. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House discussed the scheme for technical assistance to Nigeria and my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary and the Minister of Defence discussed with the Federal Ministers, the Regional Premiers and the President of the Senate the proposed Defence Agreement which was first discussed in 1958. I am glad to say that all these discussions, which were throughout most cordial, were entirely successful and we reached complete understanding and agreement on all points.
The conclusions on constitutional matters will be embodied in a draft Order in Council which will be laid before Her Majesty before the end of the summer. The Nigerian representatives stated that if after the plebiscite to be held next February the Southern Cameroons joined Nigeria it would be with the status of a fully self-governing Region while the Northern Cameroons would form part of the Northern Region and the local government arrangements recently introduced there would continue. Nigerian troops will be withdrawn from the Cameroons before October 1. Should it be necessary they will be replaced by United Kingdom forces during the remaining months of trusteeship.
On defence each country will give the other assistance in mutual defence. We will help Nigeria over training, equipment and supplies, and the two countries
1074
will give each other staging facilities for aircraft. They do not for this purpose seek any concessions of land but are content to rely on mutual goodwill. I need hardly say that there is of course no question of establishing a British base in Nigeria. The agreement on defence, certain details of which still have to be worked out, will be signed after independence and will not come into force until thereafter it has been ratified by both Governments. In the case of Nigeria this will involve a resolution being passed in both Federal Houses approving its terms.
My right honourable friend was very happy to be able in the course of the discussions to inform Nigerian Ministers of the decision of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that when Nigeria becomes independent she will become a full Member of the Commonwealth. This was received with acclamation.
The United Kingdom Bill to provide for Nigerian Independence will, I hope, be introduced after the Whitsun Recess. Members of all Parties will, I am sure, give it a warm welcome. My right honourable friend is giving further details of the discussions in a written reply to a question which is being asked in another place to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that all parts of your Lordships' House will wish to give a warm welcome to the statement which has just been made. The arrangement about defence appeals to me very much. We are not demanding a base but we are going to help them in their defence. When one remembers the fact that the Nigerian Regiment formed a large part of the West African Defence Force, which served with such distinction in the last war, I am sure we shall do all we possibly can to help them for their own security. There is only one point in the statement which I should like to mention. I am happy to see, from the words used in the statement, that there has been complete agreement about technical assistance, but I take it that further information will be given to Parliament about what exactly is proposed and under what general authority. Perhaps we may be able to discuss this question, if we are not quite satisfied, on the draft Order.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the statement

1075
made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and we should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government, the Federal Ministers from Nigeria, the Regional Premiers and the President of the Senate upon what seems to be a most comprehensive and happy agreement. The only question mark, so far as I can see, is that relating to the Cameroons. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he and Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can in the next few months, with reference to both the Northern Cameroons and the Southern Cameroons, to arrive at a happy solution for the future of these two Territories.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am not at all surprised, if I may say so, at the welcome which has been given to the statement, because they were very happy discussions and the results have been what we had all hoped and perhaps expected. As regards the point on technical aid raised by the noble Viscount, I think that the scheme will go along lines similar to those which have already been followed in Ghana and Malaya. I expect that the details will be published, but if that is not the ordinary practice I will see what information can be given in connection with it.
As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on the Cameroons, I can assure him and your Lordships that we will do all we can to help the outcome for these two territories. The matter is not entirely in our own hands, as your Lordships know. The plebiscite comes up next year, and in this two questions will be asked, as already arranged by the United Nations: whether they want to join with the French Cameroons in a new Cameroon State or whether they want to join with Nigeria. During that period we want to do all we possibly can to ensure that there is law and order and a proper course of events, so that at the time an answer is sought it will be given under normal conditions.

OFFICES BILL
4.0 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships, and particularly to the two noble Lords who spoke from the Front Bench, for not being here at the beginning of the debate. When the Second Reading of this Bill was fixed it was intended for last Thursday, and I had to go, with my noble friend Lord Crook, to a conference concerned with much of this very subject. Whilst I apologise to your Lordships if I cover some of the ground already covered, I hope that my remarks will not be directed along exactly the same lines. This is a subject that has been debated on countless occasions. This is certainly not the first of the attempts to clarify this particular field and it is unlikely to be the last. It is unfortunate that the limitations on our procedure are such that it is unlikely we shall be able to make the Amendments to this Bill which I think could, even now, help to improve it considerably. This is no reflection on the honourable Member in another place who introduced it—indeed, he is to be congratulated on having got so far where so often so many others have failed in the past.
I do not think there will be much difficulty in most modern offices in enforcing the standards laid down in the Gowers Report. There is little doubt that these standards are already accepted and, in fact, surpassed in any up-to-date undertaking. As new buildings go up, they are properly planned and provided with the right sort of space, accommodation and lighting; and, as I say, the great majority of progressive employers will have no difficulty in carrying out the regulations which in due course the Government will make under this Bill. There will certainly be difficulty for those who have old offices, but this is a problem that has confronted the owners of factories. Factories have had to go out of business because the design has been such that it has not been possible to meet, for instance, modern standards of machinery spacing; and this is particularly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, will know, in the cotton mills of Lancashire. The same process is bound to occur in offices.

1077
I should like to say a few words about the standards, because when the time comes for the Government to make the regulations they will need to be flexible, inasmuch as there will have to be some time before they can be enforced. But there are some which can be enforced at a very early stage. There is no reason why offices which are regularly used as offices, and not these border-line cases, should not meet such requirements.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to intervene here. I did mention that point specifically, as did the noble Lord who introduced the Bill. There are some simple remedies, and regulations will be brought forward to remedy these points as soon as the Bill comes into effect; in other words, the overall remedies will not have to wait.
LORD SHACKLETON: I owe yet another apology to your Lordships. I was in fact going to say something about what I thought those standards should be, because in business I have the job of trying to enforce standards in my own organisation. I should hope that the regulations will be of a kind that will be adequate; that there will be, at least, not merely the 4 cubic feet recommended by Gowers, but also 50 square feet which will take into account the existence of these large expensive and bulky filing cabinets—and I say expensive in the sense that we are still in such a primitive stage in our office design that we use equipment which is wildly expensive. I recently worked out how much rent we were paying for floor space for filing cabinets, and on a rough calculation it is £3,000 per annum. This is due to the fact that in order to use a filing cabinet you cannot have it of more than a certain height if you are going to look into it.
Office design has not made the progress that has been made in factory design. It is surprising how difficult it is to get good advice from architects and others that will suit the needs of a particular building. So many buildings are unsuitable for offices: they are too broad, and there is apt to be too much dead space. More skill will be necessary to use this dead space when the Government prescribe the standards required. I therefore hope that as part of the discussion the Government will have with
1078
interested parties, some consideration will be given to developing research and experimentation in this field. There are a number of progressive people who have done research and produced standards which are known to a few people in industry, but they are not generally known to the very people whom the Government and the sponsors of this Bill wish to influence.
Again, it is surprising in offices how little attention is paid to a fundamental aspect of management, where factories are concerned—namely, the flow of work and the amount of time spent by executives, clerks and others walking from one part of a building to another, because the basic principle of adjacency—and not necessarily on the same floor, but up the staircase—is overlooked.
That brings me to one of the weaknesses of the Bill, which is the definition, and, indeed, the Title. The word office in most dictionaries (I apologise if this point has been mentioned already) refers to an office that is held, rather than to an office that is occupied; it is an office of profit, or something of the kind. This definition seems to me to exclude some offices that really ought to be taken into account. I suggest that the time will come when far less clerical work will be done in offices than is done to-day. It is not generally appreciated that even now it is usually cheaper to telephone, even on a long-distance call, than to write a letter, which, when properly costed, may cost as much as 5s. to 10s. With the introduction of not merely sound "intercoms" but visual "intercoms"—closed circuit television—there will be offices that will not be specifically covered by this Bill. It may well be argued that in the case of such modern organisations it will not be necessary for the Government to lay down standards for them. But it is surprising how often people—not merely those in a humble clerical position but even managers—are required to work under the most appalling conditions; and their sense of loyalty often prevents them from making the complaints which they should make. I realise that we cannot do the job of management, and we do not seek to do so in this Bill; management has got to learn to do its own job, and in various ways it contrives to do it. But I hope that at no distant date—and this

1079
is, I think, one of the advantages of the Bill—the Government will introduce the sort of comprehensive legislation which they have for some time had in mind. I am sure that, as they begin to operate this Bill, they will find gaps of such a serious kind that they will be required to take it further.
If I may point to another aspect, I would mention the requirements with regard to first-aid boxes. A first-aid box can be the most useful thing in the world, and in many offices it is. Here we have the example of the very progressive legislation which the Government helped through not so long ago—namely, the Factories Act, in which greatly increased responsibilities are laid on the Factory Inspectorate, and ultimately will be laid on employers, for developing a sort of industrial health service dealing not merely with accidents but with minor ailments, as a result of which so much time is lost and so much ill-health caused. I should have hoped that it would be possible—though I acknowledge that it will probably not be—for this Bill to be strengthened in this particular way.
Another aspect on which I think this Bill is in some degree lacking is in regard to the appalling modern problem of noise. There is the greatest need for developing, and indeed using existing, techniques, both for sound-proofing and for sound absorption. There are materials for this purpose, and more and better materials are being developed all the time. I am sure that some of your Lordships have suffered from the noise of people, either in the same office or in adjacent offices, of a kind that has quite a serious effect on people who may be engaged in mental work. This applies not only to walls and ceilings, but also to floor coverings. This is a matter on which I should hope some standards, and possibly regulations, may be made in due course.
There is also a need for the provision under legislation of adequate rest rooms. There is a need for dealing with other gaps in the Bill. It is one of the surprising omissions from the Bill that, whereas the Government can make regulations with regard to safety, and so on, in the matter of offices, they cannot do so, apparently, in the particularly dangerous
1080
field of access to offices where so many accidents occur. I believe that to a large extent this matter is covered by the Common Law. If there is a dangerous entrance, the employer may be negligent. But I should have thought that this was something which might well have been provided for in the Bill.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer, but I wanted to indicate that this is a very big subject. It is one that is extremely difficult to cover in a Bill of this kind. When we look at the Factories Act, and see the definition of a "factory", which takes about two or three pages and we see the gallant but short attempt to define "office" in this Bill, we realise that the help of the Government will be necessary in this field. I would end by asking whether, without in any way endangering this Bill, the Government would be prepared to make facilities available, both in this House and in another place, to ensure that some of the improvements which I think might be made to it can be made. Apart from that, I am glad to see this Bill come forward. I do not think it is one which employees need worry about very much. I am quite sure that its introduction can be done in easy and gradual stages, and it is a further step towards completing that great field of protective legislation which exists in this country and to which, in this last Parliament, the Government themselves have made a notable contribution. I hope, therefore, that we shall have their good will, either for improving this Bill or for introducing follow-up legislation at an early date.
4.13 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Shackleton will forgive me if I do not follow him into his vision of the future and the use of closed circuit television in offices. I can well see that it will cut down the space needed for filing, but it might create difficulties if you had to ask Miss Jones what you said on the 27th of last month. Nor do I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, in his question: Why have hot water in offices? We might even ask: Why have a tap at all?
I should like to take the middle course of warmly welcoming this Bill and suggesting that, not merely all progressive employers, but all efficient employers, must see to it, in their own interests as

1081
well as those of their employees, that there are decent working and living conditions. Of course, workers in offices are just as entitled as workers in factories to proper working conditions. Although welcoming the Bill, I regret that we have got only part of Gowers. I should much have preferred to have the whole of (lowers, but perhaps the noble Earl, when he speaks again, will give some indication of the Government's intentions in that matter. As I understand it, his right honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs has given some indications of the Government's intention of introducing a more comprehensive Bill later on.
I would mention one matter which, in my view, could and should be rectified in this Bill. The noble Earl mentioned the local authorities who would have the duty of making inspections and going into offices. He quite rightly mentioned that these would be the public health inspectors, who would go to offices for various health reasons. But the Bill also takes a retrograde step in placing the responsibility on the smaller councils, the district and borough councils, for certifying means of escape in case of fire. That means that the county authorities, who are the fire authorities, who employ the fire experts and who are in all other respects responsible for making sure that places are safe from the danger of fire, will have nothing to say in this matter. It is the public health inspectors employed by the district councils who, with the best will in the world, are not experts and know nothing about it at all, who would be responsible under this Bill. That is why I say it is a retrograde step.
The Factories Act, 1937, conferred this power on the smaller authorities, who were then the fire authorities. But we have the Fire Services Act, 1947, under Section 4 of which the county councils and the county boroughs became the fire authorities. As your Lordships will remember—in particular the noble Earl—last year when the Factories Act was introduced in another place the same mistake was made—the district councils were made the fire authorities. But because of the almost overwhelming body of opinion in another place on that matter, when the Government introduced the Factories Act here the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, moved an Amendment,
1082
which we on this side fully supported, with the result that in the Factories Act, 1959, the responsibility for certifying a means of escape in case of fire is firmly placed on the people who are the experts, the fire authorities. The noble Earl said then that the right principle was that the people who had the duty of putting out fires should also have the duty of seeing that the means of escape from fire was adequate. I should have thought—and I hope my noble friend will take note of it—that that principle is undeniable, and it is useless to make all these regulations with regard to offices (which I welcome) and to neglect the precaution of ensuring that if a disaster of fire should occur the men and women employed in the offices shall have a reasonable chance of escaping without injury. I hope that this apparent oversight can be rectified.
It becomes even more absurd when one considers that an office block which is part of a factory will presumably be inspected for fire purposes by a county authority, and an office block which is not part of a factory will be inspected by a totally different authority who do not employ an expert at all. I do not think this point needs arguing any more. But I appreciate the difficult position in regard to this Bill. I wonder whether the noble Earl would say something of the Government's attitude to the particular point I am raising. I am quite sure what their attitude must be, but perhaps the noble Earl would say whether it would be possible on the Committee stage to raise an Amendment of this kind which they would find acceptable, and which would not impede the passage of the Bill or endanger its further progress. Obviously, none of us wants to press a point which is going to impair the Bill, but it is absurd to allow an anomaly like this to go forward without correction when we have the means in our hands to correct it. I hope that the noble Earl will say something on that point.
I want to raise one other point which is not in the Bill at all. I can do it only on Second Reading by regretting that it is not in the Bill. For reasons which we all understand, the Bill is based on recommendations of the Gowers Committee in relation to offices. But unfortunately all other non-industrial employments are left out in the cold; and in most of the non-industrial employments,

1083
those which are not covered by other Acts, the conditions of health, safety and welfare are most unsatisfactory.
I think that worst of all among these non-industrial conditions are those in the theatre. Working conditions backstage are disgraceful. I have often seen the miracle in a slum area of a girl emerging from a house which I know to be an awful slum and badly overcrowded, and she comes out dapper and smart and clean and well-dressed. I think it is a miracle. But what is a far greater miracle is how people who perform on the stage appear as they do, under the absolutely incredible conditions which some of them have to tolerate. We have all heard about the glamour of the stage, but there is no greater disillusion than to go backstage and see the conditions.
We only have to consider the very modest recommendations of the Gowers Committee in this matter to realise this point. The first is that they suggest that backstage sanitary accommodation should be light and clean and not less than one lavatory for every fifteen employed persons of each sex. I remember that when I represented a constituency in another place, there had to be in every house one lavatory for not more than twelve people. I heard many complaints that that was an impossibly low standard, and I quite agree. Then we are told that the management should provide wash basins, soap, towels and hot and cold water. What luxury! When you think of it, these people have to change their clothes constantly, and put on grease paint and that kind of thing, and yet it has to be a recommendation of a Committee that they should have hot and cold water and soap and towels. The third point is that the provisions of the Factories Acts should apply with regard to cleanliness. That is proof that they do not. Many of these people are scantily clad, and time and again one can see somebody on the stage who stamps his feet or falls down and a great cloud of dust arises, so his clothes are marked and dirty and they must become filthy.
Another requirement suggested by the Gowers Committee is that there should be 400 cubic feet per person. That works out at an area of only about seven feet by five feet, a square area, in which to make up and change and hang your clothes and all that kind of thing. Then
1084
a first-aid box—that luxury is suggested, and it is not in legislation at all. Most disturbing of all, in this connection, is the view of Equity and other entertainment unions that the worst conditions of employment in the profession are those existing in the rehearsal rooms used by the B.B.C. and commercial television companies, the new companies. That is their opinion. We know that they have to take odd rooms in odd places for rehearsals. Conditions are cramped and appalling and do not, in most of them, come anywhere up to the Gowers Committee's recommendations. Entertainers are just as entitled to good working conditions as anyone else, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say that when the Government does introduce the promised Bill the stage will not be forgotten and that they will take steps to end the exploitation of these people who give us so very much pleasure.
4.25 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, this is a modest Bill but it is nevertheless a valuable Bill, in that it takes us some way towards the implementation of the Gowers Report. I should like to express my felicitations to the honourable Member who, in the first few months of his membership of another place, was able with the support of his colleagues to conduct this Bill through the other place.
This is the only survivor of sixteen Bills which have been promoted, the first in 1910, as my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth said. I feel a little personal—shall I say?—evocation in supporting this Bill, because 50 years ago as an active member of the National Union of Clerks, now the Union of Clerical and Administrative Workers, I took some part in the agitation which led Mr. Bowerman to introduce his Bill in the House of Commons in that year. Mr. Bowerman was at that time the Secretary of the Trades Union Congress and Member of Parliament for Deptford. Since then there have been fifteen further Bills. Curiously enough, in the last few weeks there has been issued a little brochure by the London Trades Council to commemorate 100 years of existence in and about London. It contains a number of photographs. One of the photographs is of a march which was arranged by the National Union of Clerks from the Temple to Hyde Park, to demand, among

1085
other things, that offices should be brought under control and regulation in the same way as factories. I notice that one of the placards carried by those who participated in the march, as I did, carries a statement that 25 per cent. of clerks die of consumption, one in four, and there is no doubt about it that the unsatisfactory environmental conditions under which clerks work now is prejudicial, and seriously prejudicial, to good health and wellbeing.
The case for this Bill is conclusively made in the Gowers Report. As has already been said, this Bill does not cover the whale of the non-industrial workers of this country, of whom I understand there are some 10 million. It covers only office workers who number, so it is estimated, some 5 million, representing 10·5 per cent. of the working population of England and Wales. As the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, has said, there is very little information available as to office conditions, or indeed the number of offices, and there is, so far as I know and have been informed, no definition of an office; there is no legal designation of what an office is. But we all know that there are more slum offices than there are slum dwellings in this country. This Bill is a valiant attempt to go, as it were, halfway to providing protection for the unprotected non-industrial worker at the present tine. I have seen some pretty disgusting offices, overcrowded, unventilated, badly lit, and in many cases artificially lit all day, with no proper washing facilities, with inadequate and often foul lavatory accommodation. And there are many offices in cellars—grim, grimy and gruesome, as I have heard them described. Moreover, there are no adequate lire escape facilities. I think it will be agreed that these conditions exist and that they ought to be remedied.
It is the case that considerable new office accommodation has been constructed in the last few years. But one must bear this in mind in that connection: that that new construction has not been additional; in many eases, especially in the City, it is in place of office accommodation which was destroyed during the war. Moreover, one must remember that it is the same with overcrowded offices as it is with overcrowded dwellings. When you re-house you need
1086
much more accommodation to provide appropriate, modern, adequate accommodation than the accommodation from which those concerned are decanted or have been driven out by destruction during the war.
There is the further point—in this I think I am a little at difference with my noble friend Lord Shackleton—that, so far from there being fewer office workers in the future, there will be more. The more modern techniques and science are applied to production and to distribution, the less manual labour, but the more planning labour we shall need; land the planning is done in the office. I feel fairly certain that the increase in the number of clerks to the working population from 6·9 per cent. in 1931 to 10·5 per cent. in 1951, is likely to continue. It may be rather more obvious and in greater quantum in industrial concerns than in commercial and distributive concerns, but in my submission there will be an increase even in the latter.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would my noble friend permit me to interrupt? I certainly did not say that there would be a decrease in the number of office workers. I said that there would quite likely be a decrease in the number of clerical workers. My complaint is that the definition in this Bill refers so much more to clerical workers. I am absolutely in agreement with my noble friend that there will be an increase in the number.
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry if I misunderstood my noble friend. It is a little difficult to distinguish between a clerical worker and, say, a draughtsman, who is accommodated in the office. I should have thought that the term "clerical worker" or "office worker"—that may be a more comprehensive and more exact definition—would include What we regard as those engaged in the non-productive activities of a concern. However, that is a matter for later consideration. I am glad to know that there is no difference between us as regards the growth of the total number, whether they be clerical or office workers.
However, the case has been most convincingly argued this afternoon, and although I have made quite a number of notes I do not think there is any need for me to repeat what has already

1087
been said. This is a long-delayed Bill. It is more than overdue. It is modest, but it does represent, as I said at the outset, another stage on the road for the protection of the workers and the regulation of the conditions of their employment. Whilst it could perhaps be improved in one or two important directions, as has been indicated by noble Lords who have spoken from these Benches, I hope that nothing will be done to endanger the Bill's getting on to the Statute Book in due and proper time, especially as the Government have given an undertaking that, unless a comprehensive measure embracing the whole of the non-industrial population is prepared, they will make Orders applicable for January 1, 1962.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I wonder whether, before the Minister replies, I might apologise for the fact that I was not able to get here for Lord Morrison of Lambeth's speech, and say that my friends in industry will, I am sure, welcome the fact that their clerical workers in industry are to come under somewhat similar forms of protection as industrial workers. My friends in industry welcome the existence of the Factories Acts, and I am sure that arrangements of a similar type in regard to clerical workers will be equally welcome to my industrial friends.
4.37 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I make some remarks on the points which have been raised, and then possibly the noble Lord opposite will have further comments to make afterwards. The reporting of accidents and nuisances was brought up by several of your Lordships, in particular by Lord Amulree and by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. Of course, that matter is provided for in the Bill; and in future all accidents, if they occur in an office, will have to be reported. Equally, no doubt, if anybody knows of a nuisance or a grievance in an office, presumably he is at liberty to ring up the local authority inspector, and no doubt that inspector will come at a suitable time and will see that that nuisance, if indeed it is a nuisance or a grievance as defined in the regulations which will be published, is put right.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me. Is he right in saying "every accident"? Clause 5 seems to me to be extremely restrictive. The most difficult accidents are those the consequences of which are discovered a long time afterwards.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite has any views, but where the Bill says "Where any accident occurs in an office", I imagine that means any accident.
LORD SHACKLETON: No. Perhaps the noble Earl will read on.
EARL BATHURST: I think that that clause will cover any accident that will occur, or is likely to occur, in an office. But if the noble Lord opposite is not satisfied, no doubt he can make arrangements with his noble friend and express his views at another stage. I should have thought that that clause was fairly widely drawn. If the noble Lord is not satisfied he knows what he should do about it at another stage.
LORD SHACKLETON: The provision is in fact qualified. It refers to any accident which
"occurs in an office which … causes loss of life … or disables any … person for more than three days.…"
EARL BATHURST: Surely the noble Lord would not imagine that every cold or small cut of the finger or something of that sort should be reported?
LORD SHACKLETON: No, but every accident.
EARL BATHURST: I think that is what this particular clause is aimed at. But possibly the noble Lord opposite will have more to say about it. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Burden said about a nationalised industry, I think that if he will read on to Clause 6 (2), he will see that any person preventing the entry of an inspector is in fact guilty of an offence; and I have no doubt that that would operate in the case of a nationalised industry just as it would with any other office owner.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me—and I am sorry that my noble friend is not here at the moment—his point was that if there was an office 50 yards inside a goods yard, the

1089
officer would not know or have evidence of that being there. If I may say so with respect, I should have thought the answer would be that it would be sufficient evidence if someone were to tell the inspector that he worked in an office there.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, there is a point in what the noble Lord says, but I imagine that the existence of the office in the goods yard would be known, and if it was considered unsatisfactory people working there would be able to get in touch with the inspector and take him there; and if his entry was prevented an offence would be committed. The noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Latham, both mentioned standards. Those are to be the subject of the consultations which I mentioned, and all bodies interested will be consulted before standards are laid down.
Quite obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has mentioned, some matters affected by standards—for instance, noise and flooring materials—will be much more complicated than those on the provision of drinking water or the number of lavatories for a given number of persons. The point here is that regulations governing straightforward matters will come into effect as soon as practicable after they have been drawn up, while the more complicated regulations will come into effect as and when they can be made in the future. Possibly the noble Lord has more information than I have on future legislation, but it is known that my right honourable friend has been considering legislation. However, as so many noble Lords have shown, such legislation would be so complicated (the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for example, has brought in theatres and other places) that it will take a very long time; and obviously Parliamentary time has to be considered as well. That is why my right honourable friend has taken to this Bill of the noble Lord—because it will be a stopgap until such time as other legislation can be brought forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned the problem of the fire authority. I assure the noble Lord that I have brought that particular problem to the notice of my right honourable friend, and he is examining it. The noble Lord
1090
will appreciate that this is a very difficult point, involving most complicated problems, not the least of which is the local authority associations. I assure the noble Lord that all that has been said in this debate will be considered. The noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Morrison of Lambeth, also mentioned noise. If the noble Lords are able to think of any way of keeping people working in an office quiet, they will have gone a long way to solving the problem; but I doubt whether that is practicable under this particular Bill. I believe that it is the noise of voices which causes most of the trouble, but no doubt that matter will be covered by one of the regulations dealing with such things as insulated floors which will be under consideration. I think I have covered most of the points that noble Lords have brought forward, but I have no doubt that they will be in discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and that he will bring up further points at another time after consultation with his honourable friend in another place.
4.45 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat for the assistance he has given in dealing with some of the points raised in the course of the debate. I believe it is the case that for some years—since about 1952—Her Majesty's Government have promised legislation on this subject, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Gowers Report. A promise of more comprehensive legislation was also made by Her Majesty's Government during the stages of this Bill in another place; so that I do not share the doubts of the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government will proceed accordingly. If I wanted, I might be cynical about this Bill, but I have no wish to be cynical or to handle a Bill of this kind in a Party political way. I believe, however, that Her Majesty's Government are now under a fairly firm commitment to bring in stronger and rather wider legislation on this subject.
In the course of his earlier speech the noble Earl said that a question had arisen with regard to the inspection of offices in mines and in quarries, and I quite follow the point. It is a pity that it did not occur to anybody on either

1091
side in another place, and I am wondering whether it could be dealt with administratively in some way. I will be quite frank with your Lordships. In another place Private Members' legislation is very difficult—it may be rather more difficult than in this House; and if a Bill should be faced with the necessity of Amendments the Private Member is then at the mercy either of the House of Commons—as to whether his Bill will get on to the timetable for Private Members' legislation—or of the Government, as to whether they will take care of him and perhaps see that the Bill is brought on for consideration after 10 o'clock at night. If that should be necessary, I would ask the noble Earl to convey to his colleagues in the Government my hope that they will do everything they can to get the Bill through. Because it would be a tragedy if the Bill were to be lost, having gone through the processes in another place and been considered in your Lordships' House; and there is not a great deal of time left in which Private Members' Bills can be considered in another place—although, of course, the Government could take it over.
I am obliged to the noble Earl for his sympathy and helpfulness in our discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, was rather hostile to the Bill and, I thought, was not up to his usual enlightened state of mind on these matters, as I knew him in another place. But the letters from which I quoted were written on the responsibility of the persons concerned, and I have noted the noble Lord's observations and his dissent from what was said by some of those correspondents. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for his support of the Second Reading, which was useful. I do not think there is anything I need add by way of reply to what was said by the noble Lord opposite in the course of his later speech.
My noble friend Lord Burden raised the point about access to offices which may be some distance inside a goods yard but which does not belong to the railway. The point has been made and no doubt will be looked into. I should have thought, however, that if it were a question of being unable to secure access to an office without going through some other property, right of access, in that
1092
sense, was covered by the Bill. I am quite sure that if that should be shown to be wrong legally, nothing would be simpler than for the Minister of Transport to come to the rescue of the Home Secretary and ask the British Transport Commission to see that no difficulty is raised over access by inspectors in such cases; and I am sure such co-operation would be forthcoming.
My noble friend Lord Stonham has drawn attention to a fair number of omissions from the Bill. He mentioned particularly theatres and music halls, and those points I have noted. But if we had tried to cover all the points he mentioned—if my honourable friend in the House of Commons had done that—we should have been faced with a substantially bigger Bill than we have; he would have had difficulty in getting the Bill through Committee in the House of Commons, as the process would have been longer, and we might have been presented with difficulties in getting it through your Lordships' House. Therefore I do not blame my honourable friend in another place for taking a rather more modest line on this occasion, in the hope that Government legislation would follow.
Private Members' legislation is not Government legislation. If the Government bring in a Bill they have all the Parliamentary draftsmen behind them, and the Government Offices and the Whips—not the least useful of God's children on these occasions—who can be of great value. But a Private Member has none of these things; he is almost driven to keeping his Bill fairly modest. He might have plenty of fun and argument in Committee, but might not get the Bill through; and, of course, the purpose of bringing in a Bill is to get it passed. So I hope that my noble friend Lord Shackleton will realise the difficulties of the Private Member and be charitable in his judgment about him. However, he supports the Bill and for that I am grateful.
With regard to Clause 2, the definition of "office", which my noble friend mentioned, I think he misinterpreted the wording of the clause. The words of description here are not a comprehensive definition; they are merely clarifying words to ensure that the implications of

1093
definition put into the clause are not excluded in the legal operation of the Act. It reads:
"For the purposes of this Act the expression 'office' includes any room of which the substantial use is for clerical work"
et cetera. That does not exclude the other offices; it only makes sure that the offices referred to are included, as I read it, and I should have thought that that would be good legal sense (upon which of course I am not an authority), as well as common sense.
My noble friend Lord Stonham raised the question of the fire brigades, which he was good enough to tell me about earlier and which I understand. One of the dilemmas is that one does not want too many inspectors inspecting the same premises. That is partly the reason for the inspectors being the public health inspectors. If the fire brigade come as well, it is an additional difficulty for the occupier of the offices, though I do not say it should not be done. And of course it is a fact that the fire brigade authorities are counties and county boroughs and not county districts, as was formerly the case. I agree that there is a point here, but again it can be considered with the Government in connection with another Act. But I should not myself like too many inspectors to be "floating about" given premises. In my more cynical and cautious moments I sometimes think that we are a little in danger of the whole nation getting a living by inspecting each other.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I thought that remark would have some sympathy from the Benches opposite.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? It would not mean any more inspectors but simply the fire prevention officers employed by the county council. The position under the Bill, if it goes on, is that for fire purposes the offices will not be inspected at all, because the district councils do not employ fire prevention officers.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, it is no good my noble friend saying that there will be no more inspections. He referred to the fire prevention officers. That is another group that will inspect. I do not say that it is necessarily wrong—it may be right—but,
1094
by good sense, these difficulties are capable of being overcome. There is provision for the regulations to deal with the question of fire; and if that point is not covered by bringing in the fire authority, which in the county borough is the same as the authority under this Bill, I should have thought the county district could easily make friendly arrangements for the fire prevention authority to give them technical advice, if they need it, and then for the appropriate enforcement authority, namely, the county district, to enforce the provisions. That is a way in which it could be got over. However, the point has been made by my noble friend and no doubt it can be considered, subject to this overriding difficulty of Parliamentary time.
There are, of course, the other non-industrial workers. Here, it was my noble friend Lord Stonham who mentioned the theatres and music halls. I have a great deal of sympathy on that point, because I think some of them are not very pleasant and not up to the standards they ought to be. But, as I have said, the difficulty which faced my honourable friend in another place was that if he had made the Bill too big he would not have got it through at all. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Latham for the able way in which he concluded the debate from this side at that point, because he speaks with authority and experience as a former President of the National Union of Clerks, as it was then named. I should like to add my congratulations to Mr. Richard Marsh, the Member of Parliament for Greenwich, for his good fortune in being able to bring this Bill in in his first Parliamentary Session after election to the House. It was indeed good luck. I myself never brought in a Private Member's Bill at all. I was not a Private Member for very long, and that may explain it. But he did, and he has exercised good judgment and good sense in getting it through in as good shape as he could; and I think he deserves to be rewarded. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be good enough now to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GAME LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Game Laws (Amendment) Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of this Bill.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, who is unavoidably absent, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Grenfell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I understand from those who know better than I do that any substantive remarks I make should be on the second Motion, That this Bill do now Pass, in so far as there is a substantive Amendment down on the Paper. Therefore, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 70 to insert the following new clause:
Extension of powers of building societies to certain overseas territories
".—(1) If it appears to Her Majesty that there exist in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Ghana or the Federation of Malaya, or in any other sovereign state, laws for regulating building societies substantially similar to the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1960, then She may by Order in Council make provision—

(a) for enabling building societies as defined in this Act to carry on business and
1096
make advances in any of those territories on the security of land in such territory, subject to any such law as aforesaid and to any conditions which may be specified in the Order;

(b) for enabling, subject as aforesaid, such building societies to create, or assist in the creation of, building societies in any of those territories; and

(c) for ancillary purposes.

Any such Order in Council may also provide that a building society whose seat is in any such territory may exercise similar powers in the United Kingdom, subject to such provisions of the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1960, as the Order may specify.
(2) Her Majesty may also by Order in Council direct that, for the purpose of enabling building societies as defined in this Act to carry on business and make advances in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory upon the security of land in such colony, protectorate or territory, the provisions of the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1960, shall extend, with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations, if any, as may be specified in the Order, to such colony, protectorate or territory.
(3) Any Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council so made, but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds, who, unfortunately, through a previous engagement, is unable to be in his place this afternoon. The purpose of moving this Amendment at this stage is to give the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the opportunity of making comments in reply to a plea that was made from this side in regard to an Amendment we moved on the Committee stage, which would make it possible for building societies, if they so wished, to have business operations in the Commonwealth. On behalf of the Government the noble Viscount raised some resistance to this Amendment, but I am sure that he will remember that the Amendment received, in principle, fairly wide support. I would therefore ask the noble Viscount whether he has had consultations with the Treasury; whether he has had an opportunity of discussions with the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office; and whether it is still maintained that this clause should not appear in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 70, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do remember the debate, which was not very long ago, in which this subject was fairly widely canvassed, and when I promised to report back what had been said in your Lordships' House to my right honourable friend. In the result, there has been further consideration of the matter, but I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord that we are still of the same opinion. We are also of the opinion that if we did, in fact, approve this particular provision, it would not be appropriate to include it in this particular piece of legislation. The noble Lord will not forget that this Bill, if it passes this afternoon, will go for consideration in another place. I know that there is a group of honourable Members of that place who are interested in the same sense as the noble Lord who put down this Amendment, and I think it is most unlikely that the Government would wish me to close the door before those honourable Members at least had had their say in the matter, both privately and publicly. Although I am bound to convey to the noble Lord the Government's view, which is that our opinion is unaltered by the debate here last week, I should not like to do more than say that that is our present opinion.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount for his courtesy in making these inquiries, and for his reply? I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Amendment (privilege) made.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I rise now to move that this Bill do now pass. Except for the Charities Bill, this is, I think, the first time for a little while that the House has had the opportunity to start a major Government Bill with 60 or 70 clauses in it. Some of us may think that perhaps we might do so more often with advantage. I think it can be said that we have improved the Bill during the course of its passage through the House; but, on the whole, I believe that it has survived the ordeal of Committee and Report fairly well. I should like to thank noble Lords on all sides of the House, both
1098
for their kindly interest in the Amendments which the Government proposed and for their thought and zeal in proposing Amendments of their own, some few of which were accepted and now find their place in the Bill.
The debates on the Second Reading and Committee stages are so fresh in your Lordships' minds that I do not think it would really be appropriate for me to speak at any length on this occasion. Clearly, as in all Bills, there are matters in this Bill which are open to difference of opinion. It would be surprising if this were not the case when we remember that in this matter the Government are legislating for societies of vastly different size, ranging from the smallest to those with hundreds of millions of pounds capital invested in them. We have tried to hold the true balance between the large and the small: between the large battalions, as I think somebody referred to them on Committee stage, and the small platoons. We have never forgotten that the real purpose of the Bill is to protect the investing public; and therefore we have tried to hold the balance between potential and actual investors and the interests of building societies' managements in general.
The history of the relationship between the Government and the societies has undergone a good deal of development, as I tried to explain on Second Reading. Our view is that it would probably be wrong to carry Government control any further in this field than it has now reached. We certainly should not wish to see the Government taking a direct part in running the societies—and that is why, although I quite understood the point that was made, I did not feel able to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, that the Registrar should have power to control changes in building societies' rules.
Now that I am on that particular point, perhaps the House would desire me to refer to a cognate point that was raised—namely, that under the emergency legislation societies could change their rules during the war without securing the approval of their members in the normal way. We have made some enquiries about that practice since the point was drawn to our attention. All the changes had to be registered

1099
with the Registrar, and I am assured by the Chief Registrar that, generally speaking, these war-time changes were of a quite minor character, and that he knows of no case where a building society took advantage of the war-time arrangement to alter its rules on a substantial scale. And, of course, where the rules were changed during that arrangement, it is open for members of the society to move to change them back again to-day. I should think, therefore, that the Bill carries Government intervention and control about as far as is needed at present, without going so far as to break the fundamental principle that building societies are carried on for the benefit of and on behalf of, and ultimately under the control of, their members; and I should personally hope that this is a characteristic which they will always retain.
A number of points were raised on the Committee stage which I undertook would be considered in the appropriate quarters. I would say that the most important of these was the question of appeal from the Chief Registrar's decision to make an order under Clause 6 or 7 of the Bill. We are still examining this question, and I should like to repeat the assurance I gave on Committee stage as to our readiness to have further discussions upon it.
I suppose that the other question which exercised your Lordships' minds most was that of disqualification of directors from undertaking a valuation required under Clause 14 (1) (b). I cannot add anything more to what I said last week; but, as I have already pointed out, there will be further discussions in another place, and I know that everything that has been said in your Lordships' House will be taken fully into account. Indeed, speaking generally, I will bring to the attention of my right honourable friend all that has been said in this Chamber, so that it may be further studied.
There are also two points to which I said the Government wished to give further consideration, and on which I can now say the Government hope to move Amendments in another place. Those points are the transfer of engagements from a society in Northern Ireland to a society here (which also arose on an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds) and the position of joint holders in relation to the register
1100
of members, a matter which was raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. I am sure the House will understand that both topics raise questions of considerable technical and legal difficulty, and it was therefore not possible to have Amendments ready for consideration in your Lordships' House. Indeed, it is only fair to warn the House that it might still prove impracticable, in the case of the Northern Ireland point, to deal with the problem of transfer of engagements because of difficulties arising from differences of law between the two countries, though we hope that this will not be the case. I should like again to thank your Lordships' House for its consideration of myself during the rather concentrated attention which we have had to give to this important Bill. With these words, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
5.10 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, first of all I should like to express the appreciation of Members on this side of the House for the very considerate way in which this complicated matter has been dealt with by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I am sure that the Building Societies' Association would wish me, in the absence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, to express their appreciation to the Government and to those concerned for the ready way in which the submissions and suggestions of the Association have been considered and met. A number of Amendments suggested by the Building Societies' Association are now embodied in the Bill. I should like to say how much I have appreciated, if I may say so, the urbane way in which the noble Viscount has dealt with the matters in disputation.
I appreciate his remarks with regard to Clauses 6 and 7, and no doubt they will receive earnest and extended consideration in another place. I wonder whether he can say anything about the third Amendment which was discussed and which we regarded as being of some importance—namely, the Amendment to Clause 15 dealing with classes of additional security which might be taken into account—that is, the vexed question, about which it is suggested there is some doubt, of the joint guarantee of building society, local authority and the State.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have a very truncated note of all the points which were raised, and if I have chosen the right one, I understand that this is a matter which has not yet been decided.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

TYNE TUNNEL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons; agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past five o'clock.