HL Deb 13 May 1963 vol 249 cc1047-79

6.47 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)

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 Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, as 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 disposal of the Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.

Clause 1 [Premises to which this Act applies]:

LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "railway premises" to insert "theatres". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name. On the Second Reading debate the Opposition sought to include within the ambit of the Bill road transport depôts, dental workshops, hospital premises and theatres. The Amendment which I am moving this evening is limited to theatres, and seeks to bring within the scope of the Bill theatres and places of entertainment. One of the reasons why this Amendment is being moved this evening and is limited to theatres is that it is, relatively speaking, a moderate problem which can be dealt with without in any way impairing the enforcement as regards the 8 million people embraced within the scope of the Bill and without in any way hindering the enforcement of the provisions as regards those premises which are within its scope and its province.

Moreover, the situation in theatres and places of entertainment is very bad indeed—witness the statement, reported in The Times of May 6, by the President of Equity, Mr. Aylmer, who said: There is a fashionable theatre in which the limited air available to the underground dressing rooms used to—and probably still does—pass over an open urinal. For many years, until an energetic actor-manager insisted on having the gratings at ground level boarded over, additions to this amenity were contributed by the customers of a neighbouring public house. Laryngitis was endemic, and a throat specialist became almost a permanent member of the staff.

That is a pretty serious indictment of conditions, which I shall show are general in many of the older theatres and places of entertainment. It was found, in a survey made by Equity, that out of 156 theatres, 78 per cent. had neither baths nor showers; 26 per cent. were without wash basins, and 6 theatres examined were without a W.C. or lavatory of any kind or description. In certain theatres, partly because of lack of heating, the premises were perpetually damp; the actors had damp clothes and there were no facilities for drying, except one old gas radiator. There was a disgusting stench under the stage from the staff urinal, past which lay the only route from one side to the other. In another theatre, there were no toilets and actors had to use public conveniences. There is no means of getting from one side of the stage to the other except by going underneath the stage and through a trap. To cross backstage, one had to go into the girls' dressing room, walk outside, in all weathers, and in at the stage door to the other side. The single toilet for men had to do for 40 artists, musicians, et cetera. In another theatre, the premises were unfit to work in. They were even without a W.C., and could be brought into a fit state for use only by major renovation.

That is a situation which can, of course, be remedied by including theatres within the provisions of this Bill. As your Lordships will recollect, the Gowers Committee recommended that their recommendation should be made applicable as regards new theatres, and that, as regards the older theatres, the provisions, with, I admit, considerable reservations, should be applied according to the circumstances of the case. That means that, so long as these old theatres exist, nothing will be done with regard to the new theatres. I am informed—and it appears in Mr. Aylmer's statement—that of the theatres built since the war, not one complied with the standards recommended by the Gowers Committee. Those recommendations were made some 13 years ago, and naturally the standards are higher now than they were then.

It has been suggested by the Government that the matter should be dealt with by voluntary negotiation. The organisation, Equity, which represents the actors and actresses and others engaged in the entertainment business, are in no way convinced that the application of the Gowers standards to all theatres would have any serious results. They take the view, which I think is a reasonable one, that these old theatres may remain in existence for a considerable period, and that while they are in existence other theatres, which are capable of being made to comply with the standards of the Gowers recommendations, will escape, and sickness, ill-health and discomfort will be the lot of those engaged in those premises.

Moreover, in 1952, in 1955 and again in 1961 the Government accepted the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. They did not reject them on the ground that, if the standard were applied, old theatres might have to close down. Yet we find that in this Bill they are left out on the ground of the Gowers Committee recommendations. I do not know whether we have to wait until the millenium of the '70s. The Prime Minister has told us that this country, from an economic point of view, must modernise itself and become efficient. This Amendment requires that theatres shall modernise themselves and shall be put into a condition which does not endanger the health, safety, comfort and wellbeing of those who have to work in them. It ought not to be the case that space, which would have to be used for applying these standards, is now let for paying seats.

I understand that about 15,000 people would be involved and that the number of premises, even if cinemas were included—and they are mostly modern—in addition to those premises already in the Bill, would not be significant and would not in any way impair the enforcement as regards these other premises. In those circumstances, I hope that the Government may be willing to accept this Amendment and apply the provisions of the Bill to theatres and places of entertainment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, after the second ("premises") insert ("theatres").—(Lord Latham.)

7.0 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I think it was inevitable that we should return to this aspect of the inclusion of theatres within the Bill after the speech, so widely reported in the Press and on television, by Mr. Felix Aylmer, the President of Equity. This came after the Report stage on this Bill. It is true that we had previously moved a similar Amendment, but here was evidence from a man closely concerned with this whole problem, and a man who knows the conditions of which my noble friend has spoken in his speech. If I understand him aright, the Minister has said throughout the progress of this Bill that to apply it to our theatres would be to kill them. All I can say about that is that if they are anything like as bad as the President of Equity has made them out to be, they do not deserve to live in this day and age. I am not going to quote from Mr. Felix Aylmer, except to say that I was shocked at his report of the B.B.C. rehearsal buildings and facilities. He said that the B.B.C. and theatres in general provide reasonable facilities, but he criticised most strongly the rehearsal facilities provided for the artistes by the B.B.C. If the Minister wants the quotation he will find it in The Times of May 6, but I will not here weary the House with it.

What has prompted me to speak on this matter to-day is that I watched Monitor last night, the B.B.C. television programme, when we had a description of the theatre in Gelsenkirchen, a theatre built in a town with a population about the same as our city of Bristol, a city in the heart of a great industrial area. They have built there a theatre which puts to shame anything we have in this country. To think that we are still worrying about the provision of decent lavatory accommodation for our artistes in this country puts us all to shame. The Minister seems to be worrying in case we do anything to preserve our "crummy" theatres. If they are anything like as bad as the President of Equity has said, the sooner they go the better.

LORD SOMERS

My Lords, I do not want to take up much of your Lordships' time, but I want to ask the noble Lord who moved this Amendment on the subject of theatres whether he has ever thought of concert halls. Some of the conditions behind the platform in some of our halls, even a hall like the Festival Hall, are far from the acme of comfort, and I doubt whether they will come up to any proper standards whatsoever. The question which no doubt my noble friend will answer is whether either of them come under the scope of this Bill.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I recognise absolutely what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said about the remarks which have ben made by Mr. Felix Aylmer, and the reasons why he raised the subject again. I would remind your Lordships that we had an exactly similar Amendment on the Committee stage, and that your Lordships in a Division decided against putting this in the Bill. So we are really discussing this Amendment for the second time during the course of this Bill. I do not think the noble Lord opposite will be surprised when I tell him that the reasons which I gave at that time for not having been able to accept his Amendment seem to me as valid now as they did then. I think I should say at once that there is no disagreement between us that conditions in some theatres are not all that they ought to be, and I sympathise a great deal with what has been said. But the Government still consider that the problems of applying this kind of legislation to theatres are such that it is seriously open to question whether we should be serving either the interests of the theatres or, perhaps more important, of the employees by doing so.

Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord opposite of the observations of the Gowers Committee on this subject. The noble Lord quoted some of them, and perhaps I can fill in a little of the gaps that he left. The Committee recognised that in many theatres it would be quite impracticable to apply the welfare standards set out in their Report. In paragraph 96 of their Report they wrote: We have to recognise that to insist on these standards would mean that many theatres would have to close their doors with little opportunity of reopening for many years to come. The law would thus inflict great hardship upon the very people whose welfare it professed to further. I wonder whether the noble Lord has seriously faced the possible implications of what he is proposing for many of the people he is seeking to protect? Let me say again that the Government share the desire of noble Lords opposite, and noble Lords in all quarters of the House, to see better conditions for actors and other employees in theatres. I can assure noble Lords that the Government have noted the observations that have been made by the President of Equity. But, after long, careful and detailed consideration of this point, we have come to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with it is by voluntary negotiation between managements and representatives of the employees. Such negotiations can naturally take full account of the wide variety of circumstances in different cases, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has recommended this course to those concerned. For these reasons, I must ask the House to resist this Amendment.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

My Lords, I do not think I have ever heard a weaker case submitted by a Minister against an Amendment in Parliament, and that covers quite a long time. If the argument submitted by the noble Lord was ever substantial at all, it was substantial only some 50, 60 or 70 years ago when sanitation was the major problem of the health enthusiasts in this country. The noble Lord suggested that the Government's view is that the best means of dealing with this problem is by negotiation by actors and variety artistes generally with their employers—that is, the owners of the theatre, music hall, or whatever it may be. Noble Lords can imagine what the answer must have been 50, 60 or 70 years ago when people wore demanding better sanitation for their domestic houses, and someone suggested from the Government Benches that the best thing to be done by slum dwellers, who enjoyed no sanitation and no domestic help, was to start negotiating with the owner of the slum property. What a hope they would have had, had it not been for the health authorities themselves taking charge and insisting that the job was done.

I fully appreciate what the noble Lord said about the potential cost of raising these domestic necessities up to a first-class modern state. But, surely, the Government ought to accept some responsibility for calling upon those who engage men and women to entertain others to look after the health and welfare of those entertainers. I should not like to use abusive language to the noble Lord, because he and I have had to look after families of pigs, and it is not always true to say, "Put a pig in a parlour and it becomes a pig sty nevertheless". I have seen a change made even in pig sties where those who have built pig sties have done so leaving accommodation for domestic purposes for the pigs to find out, and they have found out. I think the Government are extremely weak in their approach to this particular Amendment, and I think they ought to accept some responsibility, as our health authorities had to do many years ago, where problems of sanitation and that sort of thing were involved. The health of the nation is now showing the results of what society as a whole forced upon us in those years, and I am pretty certain that if the Government felt strongly about this matter they could help without necessarily closing down theatres, variety halls and so on, and creating unemployment. It is rather late in the day to invite the noble Lord and the Government to do it, but I should like to feel that they would think again about what is a real Government responsibility in a matter of this kind.

7.10 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has made the problem a good deal greater than it is. I think he would agree that this Bill is largely a question of Minister's regulations; the Minister can make regulations and grant exemptions. If, in order to obtain a minimum standard, we were to include theatres within this Bill, but in any particular case the standards and requirements of this Bill were such that a theatre would go out of business, and over a period it were felt that the conditions required should not be as stringent as those within this Bill, it would be possible for the Minister to grant the necessary exemptions. What we wish to see is theatres as a class brought within this Bill. The Minister can, if the Bill is extremely flexible, grant these exemptions. I expect that it is not a question of a problem or a difficulty, but that it is really a question of will. The Government do not wish to enlarge the provisions in this Bill and they have obstinately kept to those classes which now appear in Clause 1. This is extremely regrettable and I hope that my noble friend will take this question to its logical conclusion.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I feel that I must associate myself with the statement of my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, that seldom has a weaker case been put up by the Government in a matter of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, quoted a statement of the Gowers Committee and referred to hardship. Whose hardship? Is not the hardship on the employees, that they should be subjected to the risk of ill health, laryngitis and other throat troubles, and that they should be without any reasonable amenities? It is they who are suffering hardship, and they have said through their accredited organisation, Equity, that the matter cannot be dealt with by voluntary negotiation between them and the owners of the theatres, and that the only way in which it can be remedied is by legislation. That was definitely and clearly stated by Mr. Aylmer, not only on the occasion of the annual meeting of Equity held recently, but also in a letter addressed to the Minister in November of last year.

It is difficult, therefore, to understand why the Government refuse to include theatres within the ambit of the Bill. Moreover, I understand that many of the theatres could really be put into reasonable condition by reference to

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the next Amendment is on quite a technical point. I think I shall need a few moments, and I wonder whether in view of the time perhaps this Amendment could be postponed until after dinner.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Do I take it the noble Lord is not moving the Amendment?

LORD SHEPHERD

No. I said in view of the points I wish to make it might be convenient to adjourn this until after dinner. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

the standards of the Gowers Committee for, relatively speaking, a modest expenditure. As my noble friend Lord Champion said, those theatres which are so bad that they need a large expenditure to put them in order are best out of the way. In those circumstances, unless the noble Lord is willing to accept this Amendment, I am afraid I must press it.

On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Faringdon, L. Shepherd, L.
Airedale, L. Henderson, L. Silkin, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Hughes, L. Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Archibald, L. Latham, L. Summerskill, B.
Attlee, E. Lawson, L. Walston, L.
Champion, L. Lindgren, L. [Teller.] Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Darwen, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williamson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Albemarle, E. Ferrers, E. Margesson, V.
Aldington, L. Forster of Harraby, L. Melchett, L.
Ampthill, L. Fortescue, E. Merrivale, L.
Astor, V. Fraser of North Cape, L. Mills, V.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Monsell, V.
Boston, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Napier and Ettrick, L.
Bridgeman, V. Harcourt, V. Newton, L.
Buchan, E. Hastings, L. Onslow, E.
Carrington, L. Hawke, L. Reading, M.
Chelmer, L. Hertford, M. Remnant, L.
Chesham, L. Horsbrugh, B. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Colville of Culross, V. Howard of Glossop, L. St. Oswald, L.
Conesford, L. Ilford, L. Somers, L.
Craigmyle, L. Jellicoe, E. Strang, L.
Craigton, L. Jessel, L. Swinton, E.
Denham, L. Kilmuir, E. Teynham, L.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lothian, M. Westwood, L.
Dudley, E. Malmesbury, E. Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have called the Amendment. I want to know whether the noble Lord proposes to move it.

LORD SHEPHERD

I propose to move it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Does the noble Lord propose to speak on it?

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, it might be convenient if I move that this debate be adjourned during pleasure, so that my hard worked members may get some dinner.

Moved, That the debate be adjourned during pleasure.—(Earl Alexander of Hillsborough.)

EARL ST. ALDWYN

We had hoped we might have concluded this business in time to adjourn for dinner at half past seven. I think we must conclude this stage of the Bill, and therefore I am afraid I cannot accept the suggestion of the noble Lord that there should be an adjournment at this moment.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I strongly object to that. We made an arrangement that if business permitted we would change over from one subject to the other at half past six. It was nearly ten to seven when that

Resolved in the negative, disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 2 [Exception for premises in which only employer's relatives or out-workers work]:

7.33 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2), after the second "Act" to insert "except section. 49 thereof". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and, with permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 8; and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Amendment No. 8 is the crucial Amendment. Reluctantly, we must accept the fact that the Government will not meet our point, either in regard to Clause 1 or to Clause 2 on exemptions. Therefore, at this stage, there is really happened. We have not been unduly delaying on this debate. I strongly object to a domineering Government saying to a handful of people like ourselves "You have got to go on because we must finish this and we have got to do the Scottish Bill before we go to dinner". This is physical pressure upon us, and I strongly object and I will not have it.

On Question, Whether the Debate be adjourned during pleasure?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Faringdon, L. Shepherd, L.
Airedale, L. Henderson, L. Silkin, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Hughes, L. Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Archibald, L. Latham, L. Summerskill, B.
Attlee, E. Lawson, L. Walston, L.
Champion, L. Lindgren, L. [Teller.] Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Darwen, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williamson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Albemarle, E. Ferrers, E. Margesson, V.
Ampthill, L. Forster of Harraby, L. Melchett, L.
Astor, V. Fortescue, E. Merrivale, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Mills, V.
Boston, L. Hailsam, V. (L. President.) Monsell, V.
Bridgeman, V. Harcourt, V. Newton, L.
Buchan, E. Hastings, L. Onslow, E.
Carrington, L. Hawke, L. Remnant, L.
Chelmer, L. Hertford, M. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.)
Chesham, L. Horsbrugh, B. St. Oswald, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Howard of Glossop, L. Somers, L.
Conesford, L. Ilford, L. Strang, L.
Craigmyle, L. Jessel, L. Teynham, L.
Denham, L. Kilmuir, E. Westwood, L.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lothian, M. Wolverton, L.
Dudley, E. Malmesbury, E.

nothing much more we can do. We have fought with as much tenacity as there is within our small number. I believe that the case is with us, but the power is with the Government.

Having accepted that, after the Report stage I considered the administration of this Bill when it comes into force, and it seemed to me quite clear that the exemption under Clause 2 which can be arrived at merely by not registering with the authority, would create a desperate position for the local authority. We have in Clause 49 the requirement that all offices or shops coming within the definition of Clause 1 should register with the authority, except of course those who come under Clause 2. Experience has shown, as we heard earlier today, that where cost or capital expenditure is involved there is an understandable unwillingness by concerns and individuals to take the necessary move forward which would result in their having to undertake that cost. If a firm fails to notify an authority, there is, as I see it, under the Bill, a penalty of £20. It could hardly be said that this is a deterrent. In fact, I would suggest that when one considers the possible cost to an office or shop occupier to gain a delay of perhaps two or three years, when perhaps a new tenant may be taking over the premises, a mere penalty of £20 would be sufficient for the man to say, "I think I will do nothing about this in the meantime."

Obviously, if this Bill is to be of any value, enforcement is the critical point. Enforcement cannot come until the local authority is itself aware of all the premises that would come within this Bill. As I have said, I can well imagine that of those premises that come within it, there would be a reluctance to notify and there will be considerable delay, and in order to find out the premises which should come within the Bill no doubt the inspector would have to carry out an inspection. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would not challenge my figures. I believe we are dealing with in the region of one million premises—400,000 offices and 650,000 shops. In the main, these premises will be concentrated in certain areas, and I can well believe that the task of the inspector in finding out which of those premises have not notified is going to be formidable.

I believe that if you had a system whereby all premises coming within the definition of Clause 1 were to notify the local authority, two things would happen: first of all, those who believe it is right and part of their duty to carry out the provision would immediately notify the authority; but there are people also with the exemption, being family businesses, who would themselves be willing and would notify the local authority, because immediately they would be able to obtain exemption and would not be involved in any cost. Therefore, this system would mean that you would reduce the number of premises which have not been notified. This would therefore reduce the task of the local authority and the inspector in ascertaining which premises should be within and which should be outside the Bill. Therefore, merely on the question of administration I would say that my Amendment is worthy of consideration.

But there is another point. As I have said, we must, reluctantly, accept the principle of Clause 2; but these family businesses are obtaining an exemption from what may perhaps be heavy costs in which competitors will be involved. We debated on Committee and Report the fact that there may be many businesses in competition with a family business, run perhaps by a widow or a widower who, by sheer circumstance, is forced to have employees and immediately comes within the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, you would not have fair competition. If the Government say that these family businesses should be exempt, then of course they must have exemption, but I think they would recognise immediately that it would be quite wrong for exemptions to arise merely by not notifying; that if a firm is entitled to exemption from the provisions of a statute, provisions which are being put upon other people to perform, they should themselves contract in; that they should make a statement to the effect that they come within the definition (1) but that, as they are a family business, they meet the provisions of Clause 2 and therefore are exempt. This would mean that the inspector would be in a much stronger position later on if it came to his knowledge that this was a family business; that, having been declared a family business, it came within the provisions of Clause 2, but in fact it had on its premises employees whom it had failed to notify. This would obviously give more teeth to the Bill. It would give more justice to those firms in competition with the family businesses which are exempt.

I have put down my Amendment merely to relieve the administrative problems that undoubtedly will be there. It will make it easier for the inspector and the local authority to be able to sort out those firms that come within the provisions and those that are exempt. If we were in business and were setting out to carry out a similar operation, or if the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his Navy was having to find some means whereby a particular part of the Navy was exempt from one thing, this is the way in which he would proceed about it. I cannot believe the noble Lord, or any noble Lord opposite, would proceed with this type of exemption in which one is exempted merely through not carrying out notification. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 33, after ("Act") insert ("except section 49 thereof").—(Lord Shepherd.)

7.42 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON)

My Lords, this is the tenth occasion during the passage of this Bill, and, with any luck, the last, on which I have had to protect the maidenhood of Clause 2 from the attentions of noble Lords opposite, with all the strictness, and some may think prudery, of a Victorian mother concerned about the virtue of her teenage daughter.

LORD LINDGREN

There is no virtue in this Government!

LORD NEWTON

I must have appeared to noble Lords to be the original immovable object, and that has given me no pleasure at all. I have obviously not succeeded—I expect it is my fault—in convincing noble Lords opposite that it is right, as a matter of principle, to exclude small family businesses from the provisions and the consequences of the Bill. I can only regret that I have failed to convince them.

As regards these four Amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, their effect would undoubtedly be to give local authorities more information than they would otherwise have had about premises in the areas for which they are responsible; but I doubt whether this advantage would outweigh the disadvantages of requiring more paper work and form-filling. Clause 53 gives enforcing authorities adequate powers to enter any premises, including premises with which Clauses 2 and 3 are concerned, for the purpose of verifying whether the Bill applies to them. Such visits to ascertain or confirm the position would still be necessary under the procedure proposed by the noble Lord in these four Amendments. Thus, I cannot see that there would be any significant reduction either in the work of administering the Bill or in the number of staff required to do it. In any event, I imagine that inspectors will begin by examining conditions in the larger premises or in those of which complaints have been made, rather than at the outset seek to compile comprehensive records about premises to which the Bill does not apply.

I must also explain—this is the technical point—that the procedure proposed by the Amendment to Clause 49 does not fit, and cannot be made to fit, the present structure of the Bill. The occupiers defined in Clauses 2 and 3 are outside the ambit of the Bill. It is therefore unnecessary for them to claim exemption from it. But even if they were required to claim it, and failed to do so, they would still be outside the Bill—unless, of course, there were a penalty clause dealing with failure to claim exemption.

LORD SHEPHERD

There is a penalty clause, is there not?

LORD NEWTON

Not for failure to claim exemption on the part of the occupiers referred to under Clauses 2 and 3. It would have been possible to adopt the procedure under which occupiers covered by Clauses 2 and 3 were required to inform enforcing authorities that they were so covered; but if that position were not to be meaningless it would have been necessary to back it up by powers of enforcement and penalties for failure to notify. So once again we come up against the issue of principle which I have argued before your Lordships so many times. Surely, it would be red tape to the point of absurdity, and wholly contrary to our legal traditions, to make it a criminal offence if the occupiers of small family businesses omitted to fill in forms merely for the purpose of showing that they were not affected by a Statute, which by its own expressed provisions did not apply to them.

Once again I must invite the House not to accept this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, at an earlier stage used a cricketing metaphor about me. He said that I had batted stubbornly and kept my wicket, but he said that it would be good for me, and the Bill, if I let something slip past. I may not have scored many runs in the debates we have had on Clause 2, and I have had some very accurate bowling at me, a sustained onslaught from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, some fast ones from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton (who is not here at the moment), some teasers from the noble Lord, Lord Champion; and there has always been the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren ready to whip off the bails behind the stumps. I have not made many runs but I am still at the wicket, and, as this is the last over in this innings, I hope your Lordships will permit me to carry my bat.

LORD SHEPHERD

No doubt the noble Lord is quite safe when one sees his tame majority trooping through the Division Lobby, but the noble Lord is quite inaccurate when he says that it would be quite wrong to make it a criminal offence for a firm not to declare merely because it was exempt from the provisions. Is it not a fact that whether or not you have to pay income tax you have to declare your income? Is it not a fact in regard to National Insurance that you have to carry out the same provisions?

LORD NEWTON

I cannot speak again, I know, but what I was trying to say was that the point about this is that the Bill expressly excludes these categories of people.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

It should not.

LORD NEWTON

That is not true of the Income Tax Acts.

LORD SHEPHERD

In the case of income tax a certain class of people are exempted from it by the Finance Act which is passed every year, yet they still have to declare their income.

LORD HAWKE

I think the noble Lord is slightly inaccurate there, because

I think there it a limit below which they do not have to declare.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am sure that they have to declare their income.

LORD HAWKE

Not if they have a very small income.

LORD SHEPHERD

I will not pursue the point. I take my view, the noble Lord takes his, as he is entitled to. I return to the main question. I reluctantly accepted the principle of Clause 2.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My noble friend should not have done so.

LORD SHEPHERD

I know I should not have done so, but for the purposes of my argument I did so. By moving this Amendment I have tried to make the life of local authorities easier. I have tried at least to tighten matters. Some storekeepers might regard some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as an incitement not to do anything. I hope that the noble Lord will read his words to-morrow. The noble Lord's words might encourage them to take a long time to comply. The noble Lord said: Perhaps we shall deal with the larger businesses first. This could well be construed as meaning that a man in a small way of business need not worry. I strongly believe that the Amendment should be accepted. If the Government cannot accept it, I must ask my noble friends to support me.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Latham, L. Silkin, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Lawson, L. Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Archibald, L. Lindgren, L. [Teller.] Summerskill, B.
Attlee, E. Lucan, E. Walston, L.
Darwen, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Henderson, L. Shepherd, L. Williamson, L.
Hughes, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Albemarle, E. Chelmer, L. Forster of Harraby, L.
Ampthill, L. Chesham, L. Fortescue, E.
Astor, V. Colville of Culross, V. Goschen, V. [Teller.]
Auckland, L. Conesford, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.)
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Craigmyle, L. Harcourt, V.
Boston, L. Denham, L. Hastings, L.
Brecon, L. Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Hawke, L.
Buchan, E. Dudley, E. Horsbrugh, B.
Carrington, L. Ferrers, E. Ilford, L.
Kilmuir, E. Mills, V. St. Oswald, L.
Lothian, M. Newton, L. Somers, L.
Luke, L. Remnant, L. Strang, L.
Malmesbury, E. Rockley, L. Westwood, L.
Melchett, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.] Woolton, E.
Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 43, at end insert—

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Hughes, L. Silkin, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Latham, L. Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Archibald, L. Lawson, L. Summerskill, B.
Attlee, E. Lindgren, L. [Teller.] Walston, L.
Champion, L. Lucan, E. Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Darwen, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williamson, L.
Henderson, L. Shepherd, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Albemarle, E. Dudley, E. Malmesbury, E.
Ampthill, L. Ferrers, E. Melchett, L.
Auckland, L. Forster of Harraby, L. Merrivale, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Fortescue, E. Mills, V.
Boston, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Newton, L.
Brecon, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Remnant, L.
Buchan, E. Hastings, L. Rockley, L.
Carrington, L. Hawke, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Chelmer, L. Horsbrugh, B. St. Oswald, L.
Chesham, L. Ilford, L. Somers, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Kilmuir, E. Strang, L.
Conesford, L. Lothian, M. Westwood, L.
Craigmyle, L. Luke, L. Wolverton, L.
Denham, L.

Clause 3 [Exception for premises where only 21 man-hours weekly normally worked]:

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg to move.

("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall exclude any person or premises from the operation of section 49 of this Act.")—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 40.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 44, after ("Act") insert ("except section 49 thereof").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 40.

Lothian, M. Newton, L. Somers, L.
Luke, L. Remnant, L. Strang, L.
Malmesbury, E. Rockley, L. Strathclyde, L.
Melchett, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.] Westwood, L.
Merrivale, L. St. Oswald, L. Wolverton, L.
Mills, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

8.15 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved, after Clause 41, to insert the following new clause

Special provisions as to London

".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section any premises to which section 29 of this Act applies which form part of a building from all parts of which means of escape in case of fire have been provided in accordance with the requirements of Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939, and are maintained, shall be entitled to receive a fire certificate under the said section 29 and pending the receipt of the certificate no offence shall be deemed to be committed by reason of the employment of persons in any such premises in contravention of that section.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any premises if since the means of escape were provided any action has been taken of which notice would, if a certificate under the said section 29 had been granted, have been required to be given to the appropriate authority under subsection (3) of section 30 of this Act."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name. Your Lordships will no doubt recall that a similar Amendment was dealt with on the Committee stage and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, undertook to look into the matter. This he did, and he reported on the Report stage that, for a variety of reasons, which were set out in his speech, he was unable to accept the Amendment. I should like, first of all, to say that this Amendment is a matter of administration, and that it possesses considerable administrative advantages. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has referred to the desire to diminish the paper work in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill when it becomes law. This Amendment, asking for special administrative arrangements in respect of the London County Council, is a sensible, efficient way in which to reduce and avoid duplication of paper work. There is no advantage otherwise, and no privilege, to the London County Council; but it seems to them—and I concur in this view—that it is difficult to justify a very large duplication and wasteful use of labour and of material when all the requirements of the Bill are dealt with and are satisfied by the proposals put forward in the Amendment.

Moreover, it is annoying and irritating to the owners or occupiers of premises that they should be visited twice in respect of what appear to be, and in fact are, the same requirements. So the proposal was put forward that special arrangements should be available to the London County Council. Here, my Lords, is an opportunity of reducing or avoiding the increase by duplication of paper work and of administrative activity. I thought that, having regard to the fact that we have been repeatedly told, in justification of the rejection of our Amendments, that this was an immense task; that the coverage was enormous and that we should not seek to widen it; that the enforcing authorities will have so much to do, and that, if we did widen it, it was in danger of breaking down, the noble Lord would have welcomed with joy in his heart this proposal to reduce the paper work: that he would, as it were, rise up and call the London County Council blessed for seeking so to do.

The noble Lord set down the objections to this Amendment, and I will briefly deal with them. There was, first of all, the question of the single occupation in relation to the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939. The answer to the fears of the noble Lord is as follows. Difficulties are considered unlikely to arise in respect of a building in single occupation where the means of escape have been approved by the Council, and experience in enforcement has indicated that action is best taken against an owner, particularly where structural work is involved, as an occupier is seldom in the position to execute such work. Section 10 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, does, however, contain provisions to enable an owner of a building to have an occupier charged as the actual offender in the event of court action in respect of a contravention of the means of escape provisions, and provides that the occupier may be convicted of the offence. Now we take the view that that statement fully meets the case, and shows that there no difficulty or confusion or avoidance is likely if the proposal of the London County Council is accepted.

The next point is with regard to the means of escape. In that connection, in approving the means of escape from a new building in a planning stage the Council may impose a condition, and where the actual occupation and layout of equipment and plant, et cetera, is unknown, a condition is always imposed to require the submission of further drawings before specified parts of the building are occupied. Any conditions which are imposed are binding on the owner and the occupier. The Council, when approving means of escape from a building, have regard to the number of persons resorting to the premises, and frequently impose a restriction on numbers. The Council's code on means of escape lays down standards for widths of staircases, et cetera, based on the number of occupants. That, it seems to me, meets very adequately the points which the noble Lord advanced on the Report stage.

The next point was the question of exemption under the London Building Acts. In that connection, I should like to say that it is true that certain exemptions may be allowed from Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, although in practice this is not done. In any case, the proposed new clause in the Bill would apply only to those cases where means of escape have been provided. Other buildings, including exempted buildings, would be controlled under the Bill, and there is nothing in that connection to worry about.

A further point concerned the assumptions by the owner of old buildings, and the non-compliance with the London Building Acts. In that connection, it should be said that under Section 35 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, the owner of a building cannot assume that his building complies with the provisions of this Act if not served with a notice. Until the Council serves a notice, which it may do at any time, requiring means of escape works, and until these works have been completed a building will not be one in respect of which means of escape in case of fire have been provided in accordance with Part V of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Bill would apply.

In those circumstances, and with that, I hope, reasonably adequate explanation of the point of view as regards the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I hope that the Government may be able to accept the Amendment. As I say, it will result in saving an immense amount of time and avoid a good deal of irritation and annoyance justly felt by owners or occupiers if they have to go twice through the rigmarole, in respect of one set of conditions of premises. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 41, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, this Amendment has now been moved three times—in Committee, on Report and again on Third Reading this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said, in Committee I expressed no definite view upon it, but asked for time to consider it further. This, my Lords, I did. On Report, I explained why I thought the balance of advantage was against the Amendment. The result was that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, withdrew the Amendment, on the understanding that he would look at my words carefully, and perhaps consult some of his friends: but he did say that I appeared to have a very strong case for rejecting the Amendment. My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has said.

LORD LATHAM

I wonder if I may just interpose? Of course, my noble friend Lord Shepherd did not have the advantage of the considered views of the L.C.C. when he made that statement.

LORD SHEPHERD

I said it appeared to me that the noble Lord had a strong case, but I left it at that.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Lord said that I "appeared" to have a very strong case for rejecting the Amendment. Of course, he had not had the opportunity then to study carefully what I had said, any more than I have had the opportunity this evening to study carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has just said in an attempt to repudiate the arguments which I advanced on Report stage. But I must say to him that, without having had the advantage of being able to read what he said, what I heard has not shaken my opinion that I was right to invite the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to withdraw his Amendment on Report, and that the noble Lord was also right to accept my invitation. Between the Committee and Report stages I did consider this Amendment with an open mind and with a will to accept it if it seemed reasonable to do so. But I concluded, for the reasons which I gave at some length on Report, that it would be wrong to incorporate it in the Bill. I will summarise those reasons quite simply and as succinctly as I can.

First, there would be confusion as to the respective responsibilities in London for means of escape, since the London Building Act puts the responsibility on the owner, whereas under this Bill many occupiers will be responsible. Secondly, it is far from clear that the London Building Act requires the same attention to the operational use of buildings as will be necessary under this Bill. Thirdly, the London Building Act provides that means of escape in new buildings may be exempted from its provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham recognised. There is no such exemption in this Bill and it is deliberate policy not to put any exemptions in this Bill.

Fourthly, it would seem—and this is perhaps the most crucial point of all—the owners of old buildings in London

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Hughes, L. Shepherd, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Latham, L. Silkin, L.
Archibald, L. Lawson, L. Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Attlee, E. Lindgren, L. [Teller.] Summerskill, B.
Champion, L. Longford, E. Walston, L.
Chorley, L. Lucan, E. Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Darwen, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williamson, L.
Henderson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Albemarle, E. Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Luke, L.
Ampthill, L. Dudley, E. Mabane, L.
Auckland, L. Ferrers, E. Malmesbury, E.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Forster of Harraby, L. Melchett, L.
Boston, L. Fortescue, E. Merrivale, L.
Brecon, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Mills, V.
Buchan, E. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Newton, L.
Carrington, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Remnant, L.
Chelmer, L. Hastings, L. Rockley, L.
Chesham, L. Hawke, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Coleraine, L. Horsbrugh, B. St. Oswald, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Ilford, L. Saltoun, L.
Conesford, L. Jellicoe, E. Somers, L.
Craigmyle, L. Kilmuir, E. Westwood, L.
Denham, L. Lothian, M. Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

would automatically and without examination be entitled to receive a fire certificate under the Bill, so that there would be a risk that London would have a lower standard of protection than the rest of the country. I cannot believe that anybody in any part of this House would want to see that risk being taken. Fifthly, and finally, the same authority would administer both the provisions of this Bill and the London Building Act, and would therefore be able to ensure harmonious working of both Statutes. I am sorry to say that I must again advise the House not to accept this Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I am not at all convinced, and I cannot overlook the fact that the London County Council have had years of expert administration of the London Building Act and also as the fire authority. I should have thought that they had probably had more experience that the advisers of the noble Lord. But the noble Lord has said that he cannot accept the Amendment, and in the circumstances I must ask my friends to support me.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 45.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Carrington.)

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I do not allow that to go without saying something about it. You think eventually that with your strength you can play ducks and drakes with the limited Opposition. I have never come across anything more brutal than the leadership of the House as it has been to-night. We had a very clear arrangement through the usual channels that we were to adjourn the House at seven-thirty and that we should be given from six-thirty to seven-thirty to deal with the other measures in between. We have not had either of those arrangements kept. There is not the slightest possible reason for the brutality of the Government to-night. We intend, if we possibly can, to finish what we had promised to finish to-night, the Bill with regard to Shops land Offices and also the Scottish Bill, which was the cause of a special journey from Dundee by my noble friend Lord Hughes to see the last stage of this Bill. And the Government, as they have acted in other directions for a long time now, feel they can wave their power about, irrespective of what the electorate think, whether the London or the national electorate, in by-elections or in local council elections.

This is a brutal treatment of what they know is a limited Opposition. Although you might not move a guillotine, as in the Commons so that this great unman-dated Bill was never properly discussed, you think you can get the same effect by putting down this sort of arrangement? It is not the right management of the House of Lords, I shall resent, and I shall resent bitterly, as I am sure all my colleagues will, if you refuse us this right, having sat right through the time when we ought to have been for our dinners, while the rest have been well fed. You then adjourn and go on to something else, leaving this business left over. It is scandalous arid I hope all my colleagues will vote with me, against this.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

My Lords, I have done my best to ascertain what is the feeling of the House on this matter and it is true that there is a certain amount of resentment on this side of the House as well as on that. The feeling expressed to me on this side of the House is that the breach of arrangements came from the Opposition. I think that the Opposition have been most ill-advisedly led. This is not the way business should be conducted in your Lordships' House.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Viscount has made the allegation that there was a breach of arrangement by the Opposition. Will he tell us what that breach was?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I understand from my noble friends—the noble Lord will acquit me of any personal participation in these negotiations—that the arrangement was that we should devote the time after the moment at which the London Government Bill was adjourned to these two Orders, since when the Opposition has deliberately tried to defeat the conduct of business of the House.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I wish to associate myself with my noble Leader in the strong protest which has been made at the Government's behaviour. As members of the Government know, by arrangements made with the Minister of State, Scottish Office, I have come down specially for the Third Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and am due to travel back to-night. Because of commitments in Scotland to-morrow and on the succeeding day, I cannot possibly be present in the House then. It is the Government's desire that this Bill should go through not later than the 15th of this month. It was not any of our responsibility that the Government's timetable went wrong in another place.

A few minutes ago I was offered the opportunity of having the Scottish Bill debated and dealt with to-night if I was prepared to let it go through, in the words of the Government, "on the nod". I had previously agreed to confine my remarks as much as I possibly could and to speak for not more than ten minutes, because of the illness of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. I was informed that the noble Lord was in extreme discomfort because he was suffering from food poisoning, it was believed. Out of sympathy with the noble Lord, I agreed to co-operate to the full and to speak for not more than ten minutes.

However, when I was asked if I was prepared to let the Bill go through on the nod, I felt, because of the Government's attitude, freed from any promise I had made to keep my speech down to the very minimum. The Scottish Bill is a measure which is in itself an indication of the way the Government, as my noble Leader has said, are treating the electorate. The people of Scotland have been led to believe that the Scottish Bill is a measure to compel local authorities to increase rents. It is not such a measure. It is a measure to deprive local authorities of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

The noble Lord may be in order in making such a speech at a later stage, but the only Motion I have moved so far is that the debate on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, which has been obstructed by the Opposition, be adjourned. If the noble Lord wishes me later to move a Motion about the Scottish Bill, it will be then in order for the noble Lord to describe what it does and does not contain, provided that it is relevant to the Motion then before the House.

LORD HUGHES

As I understood it, the Motion which is before the House is, That this House do now adjourn.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

No. The Motion before the House, unless I made myself extremely obscure, is that "this debate" be now adjourned, and "this debate" is on the Third Reading of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill is a Bill which is for the benefit of humanity who work for their living. It deals with people who work in offices, shops and railway premises. It is a Bill which is within the Government's mandate. It has been promised over three Parliaments. Now the Government wish to adjourn the debate. It is all very well for the noble Viscount to pout. After all, we are concerned with the people, their health and their wellbeing. The Government have no mandate for the London Government Bill. It will not upset anybody if the London Government Bill does not go through. It is the Government who are being vicious. They issue this threat to the Opposition, "If you will not let us have the London Government Bill, we will not let you have the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, which you want for the benefit of the people who work for their living".

My Lords, this is a new stage in the conduct of proceedings in this House. Some of us have come here having had experience of Parliament in another place. If noble Lords opposite want a lesson in how to keep going and wear folk down, some of us are prepared to teach them. We are certainly not going to be threatened. We might even be more rude to the noble Viscount than Cambridge was. He will not even get a majority of twenty, perhaps. This is not the way to treat noble Lords. When we were told that we were coming to this House, we were also told that the method of debating and the general approach was much more leisurely, much more easy, and much more dignified than the rough-and-tumble of the House of Commons. We had some "roughhouses" in the House of Commons, but I do not remember a Government there treating the House or the electorate with such contempt as those leading the House of Lords are doing at present.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House, who I know is invariably frank, if he will be frank with the House just for one moment in answering this question? Do we understand from his last observation that, if the Motion to adjourn the debate on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill is carried, that will leave the Scottish Bill available to be dealt with?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

That must depend on how long this Motion takes.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, the House is in a bit of a Parliamentary muddle, having been led there by the Government. I will not say that it has been led there by the Leader of the House personally, because he has not been able to be here all the time, for reasons which I appreciate. We really are in a muddle. This afternoon we started on the London Government Bill. We made a certain amount of progress. At the request of the Government, the proceedings on that Bill were suspended. Your Lordships' House then proceeded to the Third Reading of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, which was to be followed by the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Now the idea is, apparently, my Lords, that we should resume the London Government Bill. This may be the way that your Lordships' House deals with these matters. I cannot remember this kind of procedure in another place, but I am not making any great point of it.

My Lords, we are in a muddle. Evidently the Government were not satisfied with the progress made this afternoon on the London Government Bill, and they got short-tempered and decided to punish the Opposition by abolishing the hour's adjournment for the dinner period. They decided to let everybody get dinner as best he could. As a matter of fact, I have been along to the Commons tea room and had quite a good time. I had a pork pie, a hard-boiled egg, a piece of chocolate cream and some cold milk. I hear my noble friend Baroness Summerskill, speaking as a doctor, saying that I have asked for trouble. My Lords, I have done it before and I have survived.

I sympathise to some extent with noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite. Your Lordships went away to have a quiet dinner for an hour. Unfortunately, your Lordships have been dragged in and out, on Division after Division. So have I. This is the sort of thing which happens when the Government lose their head and treat an Opposition in the way described by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. If we get a bit cross, it must be remembered that we are only following the bad example of the Government Front Bench. My Lords, we ought not to get cross, but it is only human for human beings to get cross when they are treated brutally, inhumanly and unjustly.

In another place I always took the view that it was best to treat the place

CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Carrington, L. Ferrers, E.
Albemarle, E. Chelmer, L. Forster of Harraby, L.
Ampthill, L. Chesham, L. Fortescue, E.
Auckland, L. Coleraine, L. Fraser of North Cape, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Colville of Culross, V. Goschen, V. [Teller.]
Bossom, L. Conesford, L. Grenfell, L.
Boston, L. Denham, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.)
Brecon, L. Devonshire, D. Hastings, L.
Bridgeman, V. Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Hawke, L.
Buchan, E. Dudley, E. Horsbrugh, B.

well and even to suffer fools gladly. In your Lordships' House we are not fools, and that must be admitted. We know our stuff. In the other place we even suffered tools gladly, especially when everyone got bad-tempered in about the month of July. The Government now say to your Lordships, "All right, we will teach you. We will punish you". What is the result? We have not been punished to all that extent. I got my supper in three instalments, although there was not much of it.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Lucky man!

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Yes, I was lucky. The noble Lords opposite have been interrupted all the time. At the back of it all is really the Government's determination to press through, to hang through, and to steamroller through this highly unpopular London Government Bill. This Government never learn. Last week's local government elections swung heavily against the Government, especially in the Home Counties, which are traditionally Conservative. Places in the provinces do not know when their turn is coming and when their local government structure will be treated in the same way. The Government are therefore silly. Electorally they are losing the battle.

My Lords, in the ordinary way we should not divide on such a matter. However, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, in view of the way we have been treated we must register our protest. At the moment the only way to register our protest is to divide, if the House is ready to divide.

On Question, Whether the debate be now adjourned?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 23.

Howard of Glossop, L. Merrivale, L. Somers, L.
Ilford, L. Mills, V. Spens, L.
Jellicoe, E. Newton, L. Strang, L.
Kilmuir, E. Onslow, E. Strathclyde, L.
Long, V. Remnant, L. Waleran, L.
Lothian, M. Rockley, L. Westwood, L.
Luke, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.] Wolverton, L.
Malmesbury, E. St. Oswald, L. Woolton, E.
Melchett, L. Saltoun, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V. Henderson, L. Shepherd, L.
Airedale, L. Hughes, L. Silkin, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Latham, L. Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Archibald, L. Lawson, L. Summerskill, B.
Attlee, E. Lindgren, L. Terrington, L.
Champion, L. Longford, E. Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Chorley, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Williamson, L.
Darwen, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and debate adjourned accordingly.