HL Deb 30 May 1960 vol 224 cc30-45

3.48 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Comrnittee.—(Lord Burden.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Regulations for securing health, safety and welfare of persons employed in offices]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall be agreed to?

LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I desire to raise a point with regard to subsection (2) of this clause, which reads: The Secretary of State may provide by regulations for restricting the employment of women in offices after childbirth. Shortly before I came into your Lordships' House to-day, I received a letter from a women's organisation asking me to raise this matter this afternoon in your Lordships' House. They say that they regard this subsection as detrimental to the employment of women and that it interferes with their personal liberty.

In the course of my life, this question of delimiting the employment of women has gone through more than one stage. When I was young, there were a great number of employment cases in which women suffered severely by the methods and conditions of their work. Therefore, a number of women and persons who wished their welfare safeguarded set about getting regulations made to protect (as it was expressed) women from the sort of treatment to which they had been subjected, and many such regulations which the public generously regarded as being beneficial were put into effect; but they largely arose because women had no means of protecting themselves. Few had trade unions. Such unions as there were were not fully representative of women workers, and unscrupulous employers misused their rights, with the result that these regulations, such as they were, proved of great benefit to women.

As years went by, a somewhat different position arose, because many of these regulations were not used for the purposes for which they were supposed to be used but in the interests of men, to keep women out of employment. Women were classed with young persons. A great many regulations were made which affected women and young persons, and it meant that women, not in their interests, but in the interests of other people, were prevented from entering into occupations in which they were fully capable of working. Now we have reached a stage in history when a great many of these regulations have been swept away, with the result that there are only a few cases where women are prohibited by law or regulation from carrying on work for which they are fully capable.

The question which arises on this particular subsection is into which category this proposed restriction comes: whether it is a benefit to women, or whether it is not. The view taken by the society that has written to me is that it would be better to leave out subsection (2). They think that women are quite capable of looking after themselves and that any such restriction is deleterious to the vital and personal interests of women. I will not say that I necessarily endorse all the views of that society, but I want to draw attention to this in order to make sure that if this subsection is going to stand as part of the Bill it is not used improperly. There are two things I want to say with regard to that. The first is that it is essential that the women themselves must be consulted—and by that I do not mean individual women, but women's organisations—before any such regulations are made. As I understand it, that is already provided for in Clause 1 (4) of the Bill, which says: Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests concerned. So far as that subsection goes, it meets the first objection that I put.

But on this question of childbirth, there is another point I want to make. We have the phrase here "after childbirth". That is rather a neutral phrase, but presumably it means for a limited time after childbirth, because it would be quite absurd for a woman to be prohibited from doing something years after she has given birth to a child. But the point arises—and I am sure that Mem bers of your Lordships' House of both sexes will agree—that the effects of childbirth on women differ enormously from one woman to another. One woman may be incapacitated for months after childbirth, and no regulation stating a limited amount of time in which she must not do this, that or the other would have any effect. On the other hand, some women recover with extraordinary rapidity. No regulation which specifies a certain number of days, weeks or months is a suitable thing to apply in the abstract to a case where so many different standards would arise.

Therefore, though I am not moving the deletion of this subsection to-day, I want to draw the attention of my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill to this matter. I hope that, if he can give any satisfactory assurance, he will do so, and if not, perhaps the noble Earl opposite can promise that the Government will look into it and will take care that it shall not be used improperly, as some of the women who have written to me feel that it may be.

LORD SHACKLETON

I, too, should like to refer to the point with which my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence has been dealing—namely, this question of the restriction of the employment of women in offices after childbirth. I speak with some knowledge on the subject, since it is my job in business to administer regulations concerned with this field. The weakness of this particular provision is that unless it is associated with a general sick-pay arrangement it can be very hard indeed. But provided there is some proper sick-pay arrangement—and I hope the time will come when the whole of industry will have proper sick-pay arrangements—it is entirely reasonable and desirable, in my opinion, to have such restrictions. In my firm we give permission to women who are expecting children to be off for thirteen weeks on full pay, of which five weeks is to be after the birth of the child. It may well be necessary for them to be off longer, but that would naturally depend on medical advice. I hope that this provision will remain in the Bill, and that when the Government come to consult interested parties before they make their regulations they will have regard to the experience of industry, where there is information available on the working of such arrangements when they have been made internally in a particular firm. I think it is a desirable thing.

There is another aspect of this matter, although, again, I do not think we can hope to put it in this Bill or in regulations. There ought to be some guarantee of re-employment afterwards. The time comes when a woman goes off and has a baby every year for two or three years, and it becomes a little onerous on the management and expensive to the firm if they have to send her off for thirteen weeks on full pay and provide a replacement. None the less, it is a step in the right direction, and I hope that it will remain in the Bill.

It is unfortunate that the limitations on our procedure with Private Members' Bills and the time available make it virtually impossible to make other changes to this Bill, and particularly to this clause. It would not be in order, therefore, for me to propose Amendments which I do not intend to move. None the less, when the time comes for the making of regulations, I hope that the Government will bear in mind the desirability of interpreting this clause as widely as possible. It seems to me to be a defect that it covers, and, indeed, the whole Bill is concerned with, offices and does not cover that vital area, access to offices. I hope that in any regulations that are made—I do not know whether this will be legal—the possibility of covering access, which is where accidents are particularly apt to happen, will be dealt with. I do not think it would be improper to do so under the Bill, us drafted.

I would ask my noble friend and those who are concerned with and will be following this Bill into regulation form that Clause 1 (1) (k), the maintaining of adequate and suitable first-aid equipment, might also be interpreted to cover the training of people to look after that equipment. If this is to be properly maintained a regulation must also ensure that there is somebody capable of maintaining it. I think it is unfortunate, and is a defect, that there is no provision along the lines of other legislation that has been introduced for providing for the training of people to become expert in this field. I would stress that we are not concerned so much with accidents as with ordinary day-to-day misfortunes—colds and all sorts of things—which in due course, I am sure, will be increas ingly treated at the place of work by the development of an industrial health service. This is of equal importance where offices are concerned, and is not confined only to factories. I hope that this clause will be passed unamended, and that when the time comes to make regulations matters which are ancillary and related to the various provisions of this clause will, so far as possible, be covered by the regulations.

LORD TAYLOR

May I add one point to what my noble friend Lord Shackleton has said about the regulations for first-aid boxes? It would be a great pity if the existing regulations with regard to factory first-aid boxes were automatic, ally applied to offices, because the needs of offices are quite different. For example, the amount of dressing material which goes into a factory first-aid box is quite substantial, as it should be, but in an office, as my noble friend has said, the things that one looks for in a first-aid box are simply homely remedies for headaches, coughs and colds, for the women workers' pain at periods, and that sort of thing. We have found in fact that three sets of tablets meet fully the needs of the first-aid box for office workers in respect of medicines. They need only a small quantity of dressings. It is hoped that when the regulations come to be made they will be realistic and related to need.

4.2 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I am much obliged to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. May I apologise to the Committee for not being here quite on time to move that the House go into Committee? I was seeking information about the first Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, on which I was not at that point fully informed.

With regard to the important point made by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, I quite see the argument of the organisation which has communicated with him. There is a school of thought which does not like legislation for the protection of women because it means discriminating in favour of women to such an extent that it might restrict the possibilities of the employment of women. I think that may be the apprehension behind the communication my noble friend has received. On the other hand, it is a matter of community interest for the protection of the mother, and possibly also for the protection of the child, that a woman should not go back to work too soon after childbirth. I think that is a matter of sufficient community interest to warrant legislative provision being made, not for the purpose of damaging women but for the purpose of protecting their health and, possibly, the well-being of the mother's child or children. Therefore, I think it is desirable that this should remain.

I admit that it is a tricky point as to whether there should be a period stated in the regulations, because, as has been said, the situation varies from woman to woman as to when they are fit to go back. I suppose the way to cover that would be to require the regulations to state a period, the effectiveness of that being dependent upon a medical certificate to the effect that the woman was capable of returning to employment. However, there are many things for which medical certificates are required, and sometimes the way medical certificates are issued is not altogether satisfactory. However, it is a point the Government might consider when they make the regulations.

On the question of consultation, it is provided in the clause that appropriate organisations shall be consulted. There may, of course, be differences of opinion as to what are appropriate and what are not. There are a good many organisations known to be feminist in character, but they can be consulted under the wording of the Bill and in any case they could communicate with the Minister concerned and ask for their views to be taken into account, if possible by personal interview or by correspondence. There is no doubt that consultation with appropriate organisations is provided for in the Bill. I am much obliged to my noble friend for the broad view he has taken on the matter. As a matter of fact, it was my noble friend Lord Shackleton who mentioned a firm with which he is associated which gives three months pay to women employees before and after childbirth. The period before is not unimportant. As my noble friend said, if a woman has an annual custom of having children—and it does happen in some cases—the employers might get a little "browned off", shall we say, in continuing, to pay three months pay for no work. In any case, it could not be done under this Bill, but it is a point which is worth keeping in mind. Women get some benefit under the National Health Service Act, but not benefit of this scope.

The point in regard to paragraph (k) in subsection (1), about training in first-aid, was partly answered by my noble friend Lord Taylor, who said that in the case of offices very little was needed, other than suitable tablets for certain troubles. In so far as that is true, provided there are proper directions on the bottle or box containing the tablets, not much first-aid would be needed. Nevertheless, in so far as first-aid is needed, the regulations could take into account that there should be suitable facilities for training to take place. In the case of a small office one could not very well expect it to employ a special person for that exclusive purpose. On the other hand, if it is an office in a factory, it is quite likely that the industrial health service will be there, and that the matter will be taken care of. My noble friend Lord Taylor was quite right in saying that the circumstances of offices and office employment are quite different from those which obtain in factories. In the circumstances I think the clause is about as good as we can get it, but no doubt the noble Earl opposite will be able to assure us that the points will be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State in making the regulatons so that they can be properly considered.

EARL BATHURST

I think it may be convenient if I take this opportunity to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said. This particular subsection to which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has drawn your Lordships' attention is, of course, solely for the protection of women, and there was no idea of restricting the employment of women in offices, whether for reasons of childbirth or otherwise. Any regulations my right honourable friend makes under this subsection will, of course, be made after the fullest consultation, not only with members of industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and the noble Lord Shackleton, asked, but also with representatives of the women employees' associations or trade unions. As the noble Lord will see, under Clause 5 these regulations will be subject to debate in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that when that happens—it must be some time in the future—your Lordships will have the benefit of the expert advice of the Lady Members of your Lordships' House. It is most sad that none of them is able to be in her place to-day, as I am certain that we should have had the most expert and beneficial advice from them.

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton asked about access to offices and, of course, that matter is not covered in the ambit of this modest Bill. The noble Lord must recognise that it is a modest Bill. Such accidents will be treated in the same way as if they had happened in a street or some other public, or fairly public, place, where they can be collated and registered. As it is at present, accidents in offices are lost. They become a jumble of statistics, and it is impossible to find out what accidents do happen. But that is the point of this Bill; to make certain that these accidents can be tabulated under a subsection of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, spoke about first-aid boxes, and your Lordships know how much he has done in the whole field of industrial medicine. Of course these first-aid boxes will be described in the regulations again after consultations. I do ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, that this is a modest Bill and cannot go into all the divergent subjects about which we have heard this afternoon. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence.

LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I have no wish to push this matter any further now, but I want to say just two things more—first of all, on this question of how long a woman should be kept out of the office. It is not a question of manual labour, but a question of the offices. It must vary very much from individual to individual. As to the pre-natal period, I may perhaps tell the House a fact that may surprise them; I should not have come into the world at all if my mother, who walked across the frozen Serpentine the day before I was born, had had an accident in consequence of that action.

As to post-natal activity, it seems to me very much to depend upon the kind of occupation. Take a woman who is a secretary, and perhaps does not even have to move the keys of a typewriter. In such a case it may be that a period of something like ten to thirteen weeks for her to stay away from work may be fantastic. It may be very much better for her to return within a few weeks. What may arise may be the question of the child, and that is the question the women's organisations are concerned with: the woman's right to decide what is best for the child. It may be better that she should go back to work and that the child should be cared for in some other way. She would get more money. But it is not a question for the Secretary of State to decide. The interests of the individual woman as she feels for herself should, in the general case, prevail over some regulation made from outside on a generalisation of the circumstances of women who differ so very greatly from one to another.

EARL BATHURST

I am quite certain that your Lordships all appreciate everything the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has said, and I assure the noble Lord that, when these regulations come to be made, all that has been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon will be taken into consideration. The regulations will be made for the protection of women, and my right honourable friend will have to take the best advice available to him, including, no doubt, the advice given to us this afternoon, when he makes up his mind as to how these regulations shall be formulated and then applied.

LORD SHACKLETON

I should only like to say that the whole weight of medical opinion is against my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence.

On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Notification of accidents

5.—(1) Where any accident occurs in an office which either—

  1. (a) causes loss of life to a person employed in the premises; or
  2. (b) disables any such person for more than three days from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed,
written notice of the accident, in the prescribed form and accompanied by the prescribed particulars, shall forthwith be sent by the occupier to the local authority in whose area the office is situated.

4.14 p.m.

LORD JESSEL moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that, in the case of an office to which the provisions of section seven of this Act apply, the report shall be made to the factory inspector in whose area the office is situated.

The noble Lord said: your Lordships will see that Clause 7 of the Bill provides that offices forming part of a factory are to come under the supervision of the Factory Inspectorate and not the local authority. But if your Lordships look at subsection (1) of Clause 5 you will see that it says that written notice of the accident, in the prescribed form and accompanied by the prescribed particulars, shall forthwith be sent by the occupier to the local authority in whose area the office is situated. The object of my Amendment is quite simple and, I think, logical. I want to ensure that an accident in an office which comes under the supervision of the Factory Inspectorate should be reported to that department, and that department only. I understand that Her Majesty's Government are quite favourable to this Amendment, and also (which is equally important that they will see that time is found in another place for the Amendment to be considered and incorporated in the Bill. I have had some correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and I have assured him the last thing I want to do is to wreck the Bill. I hope that we are now going to get an assurance from the Minister in charge of the Bill that he will accept my Amendment; and as a little douceur may I say that I understand the other Amendments are not viewed so favourably, and I am not going to move them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 40, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Jessel.)

LORD SHACKLETON

This Amendment seems a very reasonable one, but I am not sure whether it is as necessary as the noble Lord suggests. The purpose of Clause 5 (and I must apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for misunderstanding the purpose) is primarily to provide statistics—I think I am correct in that. It is not from the point of view of providing information which would be of value to factory inspectors from the immediate point of view of investigating an accident. I ought to remind your Lordships that there is, of course, provision under the Industrial Injuries Regulations that all accidents which are liable to give rise to a claim for National Insurance must be recorded, and this is a much stricter requirement than is that laid down in Clause 5, which is almost word for word the same as in the Factories Acts.

There is, or should be, in every establishment employing more than ten people such a book, and this information will be recorded in it, and will presumably be open to the factory inspectors as provided by Clause 7. I think, in fact, that the factory inspectors are enabled in certain cases to discharge responsibilities under this Bill. I agree that there is a certain illogicality in this clause not also applying, but in so far as the purpose is to provide information and statistics of accidents in offices there is, I submit, a certain logic in letting it go to the authority which is particularly concerned with collecting those statistics; and to that extent, whereas I would not oppose the regulation, I do not think the case for it is quite so strong as when I first heard it. I know that there is no question of the noble Lord's wishing to endanger the Bill, but if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, feels it too dangerous to accept this Amendment—and I think it is a great tragedy we cannot do this sort of thing—I do not think too much harm will result.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for the helpful speech he has delivered. My instinct was to resist the Amendment, partly because I am not sure that it is really vital, and partly because I do not want to run the risk of delay in another place. On the other hand, Lord Jessel has come forward with a fairly noble offer: that he proposes to move this Amendment but not the other two that are on the Paper, on which I had ready a very fine speech that would have completely undermined his arguments. I am sorry not to deliver it, but it will save the time of the Committee. This Amendment really means that it is an office in a factory, and that therefore, when the accident takes place, it should be reported to the factory inspector to whom powers in factories are being delegated for the administration of the Bill.

I am bound to say, on looking into the matter and taking advice, that I think that the noble Lord has made a case, subject to this: that the Government will give time in another place for the consideration of the Lords' Amendment or Amendments, as the case may be, and ensure the passage of the Bill in the present Parliamentary Session. If that undertaking is given then I think this is not an unreasonable proposition. I imagine that the purpose of the provision in the Bill—I say this with great respect to my noble friend Lord Shackleton—is not only the collection of statistics. An accident may reveal that there is something wrong in the factory itself, either in its physical construction or characteristics, or something else, of which the factory inspector ought to take notice and possibly serve notice on the owners of the factory to make certain modifications or alterations. That rather strengthens the case of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for the factory inspector rather than the local authority to have the report, because he is the man who can best take action arising out of an accident.

In all the circumstances—although I must say that I was hoping to get this Bill through without amendment—reason comes to me and I think it would not be right or fair to resist this Amendment of the noble Lord, provided that the noble Earl can give undertakings of the character that I have mentioned. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for not pursuing the other two Amendments. That makes it easier to accept this one.

EARL BATHURST

My noble friend Lord Jessel argued that it would avoid confusion if notifiable accidents occurring in offices inspected by the factory inspectorate were required to be reported to the local inspector, and that is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. For those reasons Her Majesty's Government consider that the balance of argument is, in principle, probably in favour of my noble friend's Amendment. The parallel provision is in Section 64 of the Factories Act, which requires accidents occurring in a factory to be notified to the factory inspector of the district. Although the prime object behind the clause in this Bill is to collect the information for more general purposes for the analysis of the types of accidents to which office workers are exposed, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, mentioned to us just now, particular notification may well be of interest to the local enforcement authority, again for the reasons that the noble Lord mentioned, so that possibly measures can be brought to the notice of the employers, or that measures in general might be applied in that particular type of office. This is an Amendment which can reasonably be accepted if your Lordships so desire it and provided it meets with the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Morrision of Lambeth. As we have heard, it would meet his wishes, and I assure the noble Lord that should your Lordships pass this Amendment, there will be time made available by Her Majesty's Government in another place.

LORD SHACKLETON

I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, on his break-through on this Bill. If the Government are prepared to provide time for this useful Amendment, might they not perhaps take over one or two of the suggestions that have been made—this point of access, and so on—and get those through also? I am quite sure that the noble Earl is aware of other improvements that might be made and which he might think of putting down on Report stage—or we would put them down for him, if he is prepared to give the same sort of undertaking.

EARL BATHURST

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and his noble friend Lord Stonham, who is not now in his place, know perfectly well the problems that we should have to meet if some of their ideas were to be put into effect. No doubt they may be good ideas. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and I have said, this is a modest Bill, and is a start to put right some of the wrongs that no doubt exist in offices. I must draw the noble Lord's attention to the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place on Friday, where, in column 1762, my right honourable friend said: As to the future, the Government are considering whether the Bill should be overtaken by some more comprehensive form of legislation such as has been referred to. Those in another place were having a rather similar debate on points brought up such as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and his noble friend Lord Stonham, have been bringing before your Lordships.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

It is a most remarkable Parliamentary innovation to say that because a Bill is a modest Bill you cannot accept an Amendment. The Amendment depends upon the Title of the Bill. If the Amendments were within the Title, then they can be accepted. The argument that there is not enough time is another matter altogether. I point that out only in passing, because I do not think that that is an innovation which is in accordance with Parliamentary practice.

EARL BATHURST

I would not lightly cross swords with such an expert on procedure as the noble Viscount, but I assure him that there are so many bodies and interests to be consulted that it would be far beyond the scope of a Private Member's Bill, which is a modest start. I hope that by quoting from the speech of my right honourable friend I have shown a little which way the wind is blowing.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Neither the blowing of the wind nor what the noble Earl says was said in another place affects the fact that what is proper to go into a Bill is governed by the Title.

EARL BATHURST

I did not say that it was not proper. I said that it was almost impossible at this late stage in the Session—not improper.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I, too, do not wish to cross swords with such an experienced and expert Parliamentarian as my noble friend Lord Stansgate. He was once a Government Whip. I gather that he does not much like to be reminded of that. He got out of that job fairly expeditiously, and he became a lively and effective Back-Bencher for many years afterwards in another place. It is always a pleasure to hear him. I do not blame him at all for making the point he made, especially as it affects the noble Earl opposite rather than myself. On the other hand, the noble Earl opposite makes a perfectly fair point; it was made by myself, and he is entitled to rely upon what I said as evidence on his side. I have never handled a Private Member's Bill before—it is a new experience for me—but it is undoubtedly the case that if there is too much in the Bill there will be trouble and there will be delay in getting it through. Then there is further delay when your Lordships give it proper and adequate consideration. As a consequence, one may endanger the passage of the Bill.

I sympathise warmly with my noble friend Lord Shackleton. I know exactly what he is getting at. If he will not mind my divulging our private relations, I may say that he and my noble friend Lord Stonham had intended to put down Amendments. Lord Stonham had done so and my noble friend Lord Shackleton wanted to do so. There was nothing on earth to prevent my noble friend from doing it except that I persuaded him and my noble friend Lord Stonham not to do so. I am grateful to them. The reasons I gave were the same as I have given to-day. Now, lo and behold! my noble friend Lord Shackleton comes along and sees me accept an Amendment from a noble Lord opposite. He is quite entitled to say, as the late Earl, then Mr. Lloyd George said, "Me, too". But I am afraid that that is the situation, and I cannot help it. I am obliged to my noble friend for his assistance in the matter and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for not moving the other two Amendments. There we are. Such is the nature of Parliamentary business.

LORD JESSEL

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for being so kind about my modest Amendment on this modest Bill, and also for the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Bathurst which has made it possible for him to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Enforcement of Act by factory inspectors in certain cases]:

On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall be agreed to?

LORD BURDEN

This clause was inserted at the Report stage in another place and, quite briefly, it transfers responsibility for the enforcement of the provisions of the Act in relation to offices in factories from the local authority to factory inspectors, leaving the local authority inspectors to look after only the sanitary conveniences in offices. It would be unfair to develop the matter further this afternoon, because I have not had an opportunity of discussing this point with my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth; but I take this opportunity of saying that on the Report stage I shall move that Clause 7 be deleted.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I have taken note of what has been said by my noble friend. I would only say that I shall be a partisan in favour of very strict economy on Amendments and changes on the Report stage, solely for the reason I have indicated. Nevertheless it is still a free country, so far.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Then Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I was proposing to move that the Report be now received. That would mean that we should pass the Report stage to-day, but that would not exclude consideration of Amendments which, under the procedure of your Lordships' House, can be considered on Third Reading. If the House would be good enough to agree, I would move that the Report be now received, so that the next stage would be the Third Reading, with consideration of any Amendments which might emerge. I beg to move that the Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to: The Amendment reported.