Lords Sitting of 19 August 1919

Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PROFITEERING BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to without amendment, and certain of the Amendments disagreed to, for which disagreement the Commons assign Reasons.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons be now considered.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the first Amendment to which the Commons disagree is that made on page 3, line 40, which deals with burial grounds. The reason they give is that it is inexpedient to introduce controversial provisions into a Bill intended to settle differences by agreement. Your Lordships will remember that it was contended here that the House of Commons had not had an opportunity of expressing a considered opinion on this subject, and the Amendment was sent down to another place only in order that they might have that opportunity. They have now had it, and they retain their former opinion.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the Amendments on page 3, line 35, and on page 5, line 18, are consequential on the previous decision of your Lordships.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the Commons disagree to the Amendment made
1046
by your Lordships inserting, after Clause 8, a new clause with reference to Convocation. The reason the Commons give is that it is inexpedient to introduce controversial provisions into a Bill intended to settle differences by agreement.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendment to the Title is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOSPORT AND ALVERSTOKE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons yesterday; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

ARDROSSAN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons yesterday, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
Return showing, for the Councils of the Administrative Councils of Chester, Devon, Essex, Middlesex, Monmouth, Norfolk, Northumberland, Nottingham, Southampton, Stafford, Carnarvon, and Glamorgan, and for the Councils of the County Boroughs, other Municipal Boroughs, Urban Districts, and Rural Districts situate, or deemed to be situate, within those counties—

1. The number of casual vacancies in the membership of the Councils filled during the year 1913;

2. The number of those vacancies filled by contested election; and

3. The number of elective members of the Councils at the end of the year 1913:

Laid before the House yesterday (pursuant to the Order of the 16th July last) and to be printed.

PRICE OF HAY.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY (on behalf of LORD HINDLIP)THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY (on behalf of LORD HINDLIP) rose to ask His Majesty's Government "whether, in order to prevent the price of the hay crop of 1919 rising to a very high figure, which would increase the cost of production of milk and meat and of all agricultural operations and would seriously affect the cost of feeding horses, etc., in towns, they will fix a price for hay, fair to producer and consumer, leaving the control of distribution alone and abandoning any idea of commandeering any portion of the crop, as any such action would further increase the cost of hay to the consumer."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am a sort of deputy deputy. Lord Hindlip asked Lord Stanhope yesterday to put this Question for him, but Lord Stanhope was unable to attend to-day, and consequently I have been asked to put it. It is a subject about which we may talk a great deal. If you do not place some price upon hay, I very much doubt whether it will not go to a tremendous price. Farmers really need hay, because there is a bad crop and it must be got.
There is one question which arises out of this, of which I would ask Lord Somerleyton to take note. It is this. There are some people, including my-self, who still hold hay upon which the Government have put a mark. They put it on mine on October 18 last year, but they have never taken any of the hay, which now remains where it was. I asked whether I could be given it, because I could very well do with it. I said that if I had any I would sell it at the same price which the Government put upon it—namely, £7 a ton. The answer, which I have in my pocket, is that the hay has gone out of the control of the War Office and is now in the hands of the county authorities, who can do what they like.
The Government never paid a deposit, and I Should like to know, if they take this hay at £7 a ton, that they are not going to sell it to the public at £12 or £14 or £15 a ton. They ought to sell it at a fair distribution price, and then the public will get the advantage of my haystack at the lower price. If not, they should give me the increased price. But I do not want the increased price. I mention this matter because I think it is only fair that they should not make a large profit out of the hay. Nobody knows better than I do that by the time the hay reaches the consumer
1048
it has gone through numerous channels and the price has gone up very high. I think that very likely hay ought to be protected. I am told to apply again. If I had any hay over, I would sell it at exactly the price that they give to cart any of it away. I do not think you ought to charge more. That is a point that ought to be taken into consideration because hay is open to very large profiteering.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, who put down this Question, for the kind way in which he has postponed it at my request. I was most anxious to give a full answer, and I have been unable until to-day to obtain a reply. In fact, some of it has only reached me in the last minute. The various factors in the problem were discussed in the House of Lords on July 10. There is still considerable reason for anxiety as to whether the supplies of hay that are likely to be available for distribution in the next twelve months from either home or foreign sources will prove sufficient to meet requirements. But there would be serious and legitimate objection to the continuance during the coming year of a rigid system of control on the lines of that which has hitherto prevailed.
The Government have no present intention of either commandeering or of controlling the distribution of 1919 hay, and they sincerely hope that circumstances will not arise to render necessary recourse to either of these expedients. The Government will, however, maintain a careful watch over the whole hay position, and should prices at any time soar to an unreasonable level they will consider carefully the advisability of fixing maximum prices, as suggested by the noble Earl. The Board of Trade will have powers to fix prices under the provisions of the Profiteering Bill. The Government are not, however, of the opinion that the need for fixing prices has as yet arisen.
The general danger that the fixing of prices may diminish supply is of special importance in the case of a commodity like hay, of which the farmers are not only the producers but the principal consumers, and which competes as a feeding-stuff with other commodities, which this year are very expensive to obtain. In these circumstances, if the price of hay was fixed now at a relatively low figure there is a real danger that an even smaller margin would come into the market for

1049
general consumption than may be expected under free conditions. For these reasons, the Government do not propose immediately to fix maximum prices for hay, though they will continue to watch the position very closely
Complaints have been made that in the administration of the control of the 1918 crop middlemen have been able in many cases to make exorbitant profits, while farmers' profits were limited to a very low figure. But in fact middlemen's charges were fixed just as rigidly as the farmers' prices. A schedule of charges was drawn up which allowed a margin of only 27 s. per ton to cover all the charges of wholesalers and retailers, from the stock to the consumer, excepting only transport charges, which of course varied in each case. It is no doubt possible that in certain cases wholesalers or retailers made excessive charges by misdescribing the quality of the hay purchased. But such cases involved a definite breach of the law, rendering the offender liable to penalties, and they were certainly not common.
It has also been complained that distributors took illegitimate advantage of the provision by which they were allowed to make certain additional charges for small deliveries (of less than 10 cwt.). But it was expressly provided that they could not make such extra charges for a number of small deliveries made against a large order—that is, for more than 10 cwt.—whatever the reason might be, whether "owing to a shortage of supplies" or other reasons. I am quoting the Order. Any "profiteering" under this head, therefore, must also have involved a breach of the law, and cannot have been common.
As regards the future, should the prices of 1919 hay be controlled at any time this would clearly involve, as in the past, control over the distributors' charges. The way in which this should be done would naturally be considered at the time when the question of fixing prices arises. The Profiteering Bill is designed to give the Government powers to control the charges of the middlemen as well as those of the farmers. I do not know whether I have answered all the points raised by the noble Earl, but I can go further into the question of the 1918 hay and enumerate the arrangements at length if he wishes me to do so.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not desire that.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: Then I will not trespass any longer on your Lordships' time to-day. I trust that the answer I have given will be satisfactory to the noble Lord who put the Question. If any further information is desired, I shall be glad to give it.

THE MILK PRICES ORDER.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY (on behalf of LORD STRACHIE)THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY (on behalf of LORD STRACHIE) rose to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster "if he will now state the total amount received by the Ministry of Food from the deduction of 2d. per gallon from the price received for milk produced in the four South-Western Counties, and exported therefrom. Further, if he will state the total amount which the Ministry of Food has not received owing to those who are liable to pay this 2d. under the Milk Prices Order having refused to do so, on the ground that such Order is not legal, and how is the amount which has been received dealt with, and will any of that amount be directly or indirectly spent in foreign countries."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, again I am acting as deputy. I am not a West-countryman, and I do not know much about cows; and I shall be perfectly content with the answer which the noble Earl will give me.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the total amount received up to July 31 by the Ministry of Food in respect of the sum of 2d. per gallon charged on milk produced in the four South-Western counties which is exported from those counties, or is utilised in the manufacture of milk products, is £9,200. An estimate of the amount which is due to the Ministry for the period May 1 to July 31, 1919, based upon the returns made by dealers and manufacturers, is £163,700, so that a balance of about £154,500 is still outstanding.
This situation is due in a large measure to refusal to pay the money on the ground that the Order requires payments to be made which are not legal. In certain cases, however, the dealers are provisionally retaining the amounts due as they have put forward claims against the Ministry in respect of the control exercised during the winter 1918–19 by the Food Controller under Regulation 2GG of the Defence of

1051
the Realm Regulations, and these claims are in course of settlement. It should also be pointed out that of the amount (£163,700) stated above, £46,200 is in respect of July, and therefore, owing to the need for examining returns and adjusting the amounts to be paid, cannot at this date be said to be unduly held back.
As the question has been raised, the Ministry has asked the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the legality of the collection by the Ministry of the 2d. per gallon on exported milk and milk utilised for the manufacture of products. Upon this point I may inform the noble Lord that the Food Controller is now in possession of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, who have advised him that in their opinion the collection of the 2d. per gallon is within the powers of the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
The amount which has been already received has not yet been applied in any way, but is credited to a special fund which will be applied later—probably in the winter at period—in the reduction of the price to the public of milk products such as cheese, which, under the Ministry's pooling arrangements, is bought from the British farmer at a higher price than that at which it is sold through the Government pool. The precise application of the fund has not, yet been determined, but no part of it will be spent either directly or indirectly in foreign countries. The prices paid for foreign milk products are determined by market conditions in these countries, and no higher price has been offered in expectation of utilising the fund referred to in relief of such purchases.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the noble Earl whether there is any more business coming up from the House of Commons?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The House of Commons have accepted the Amendments which your Lordships put into the Profiteering Bill yesterday. I conclude, therefore, that we have only now to wait for the Royal Commission, which is expected in a few moments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was only anxious to find out whether the Government had any more Bills which they intended to present to the House this morning.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No; I am glad to say that we are not going to present any further Bills to your Lordships at such short notice.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Welsh Church (Temporalities).

Profiteering.

Public Works Loans.

Solicitors.

Animals (Anæsthetics).

Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland).

Land Settlement (Facilities).

War Pensions (Administrative Provisions).

Labourers (Ireland).

Forestry.

Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation).

Intestate Moveable Succession (Scotland).

Courts (Emergency) Powers.

British Mercantile Marine Uniform.

Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit).

Fraserburgh Harbour (Rates) Order Confirmation.

Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation.

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation.

Clyde Navigation Order Confirmation.

Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation.

Victoria Infirmary of Glasgow Act, 1888 (Amendment) Order Confirmation.

Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation.

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation.

City and South London Railway.

Leicester Corporation.

THE AUTUMN RECESS.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Wednesday, October 22.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before one o'clock.